i don't know about the ex-1

Status
Not open for further replies.
doofalot said:
cool, definitely a bit of visible jellocam but not horrific under the circumstances.

and the camera was pretty steady, i'm assuming at least a shoulder mount.
Click to expand...

If you ask 500 people who saw that segment here what they noticed, and they'll comment about letting go legal-sized fish. Press them about "jello cam" and they wouldn't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Shake is annoying, whether there's a rolling shutter or not. So don't shake the camera. Even in the days of Super 8 movies an unstable camera was guaranteed to lose an audience. Half a century later and with all our technical leaps and bounds, a wobbly camera is STILL death to good programming.

I use a shoulder mount. Even when I was shooting with a Sony PD-170 or Panasonic HVX-200 I used a shoulder mount. No matter what you shoot with, you need to have the camera as stable as practically possible.

It's all about content. Not about a microscopic frame-by-frame analysis to pick apart a given weakness. Frankly, I don't see jello-cam. I'm more concerned with getting a story across, getting good exposures and color, and capturing good audio.
 
DCSensui said:
If you ask 500 people who saw that segment here what they noticed, and they'll comment about letting go legal-sized fish. Press them about "jello cam" and they wouldn't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Shake is annoying, whether there's a rolling shutter or not. So don't shake the camera. Even in the days of Super 8 movies an unstable camera was guaranteed to lose an audience. Half a century later and with all our technical leaps and bounds, a wobbly camera is STILL death to good programming.

I use a shoulder mount. Even when I was shooting with a Sony PD-170 or Panasonic HVX-200 I used a shoulder mount. No matter what you shoot with, you need to have the camera as stable as practically possible.

It's all about content. Not about a microscopic frame-by-frame analysis to pick apart a given weakness. Frankly, I don't see jello-cam. I'm more concerned with getting a story across, getting good exposures and color, and capturing good audio.
Click to expand...

i won't disagree with much of what you're saying. everyone on these boards - myself included - obsesses about minutia that tv and movie viewers couldn't care less about in theory. i mean the blair witch made 100M.

but it is the things we obsess about that makes real movies what they are when you add them all up.

and i won't disagree for a second that good audio, color, shot composition and exposure are essential, as is good acting and steady camera motion.

but i think jellocam is as valid a concern as any other, since to me, having your lead actor's face oddly stretched out for a half second is probably equivalent to the audience of having him deliver a single word unnaturally. both 'break the spell'.

but yeah all your points are valid.
 
doofalot said:
myself included - obsesses about minutia that tv and movie viewers couldn't care less about in theory. i mean the blair witch made 100M.

but it is the things we obsess about that makes real movies what they are when you add them all up.

...

but i think jellocam is as valid a concern as any other
Click to expand...

I agree.:laugh:

But hollywood studios do Not tend to stretch the limits of a camera, which is basically what we are taking about. They'll create a new camera to do what they want it to do before they try to push a new cam to the limits. But new technologies are just that. The first time I saw Toy Story I felt weird, too much was in focus and super sharp, by Toy Story 2 Pixar had fixed the problem.

What I encouage is for people to not try and push the EX1 to it's limits. Instead, use it for all the cool shots it can do well. And get some friends, ones that you can borrow their HDV Sony or Canon Cameras and use on fast motion. That way no weirdness and there will be little worry about sharpness because when you're moving fast you can't really tell that much anyway. So the 1440x1080 / 1440x520 (frame mode) should be fine, cutting with 1920x1080 because the 1440x1080 is moving so quick the human eye can't focus on the sharpness. But when the human eye has time to focus, then move to the Ex1s sharp image.

Hollywood works around their own limits and tries to find ways (with money) to fix the problems. As a Shoebox Indie, you have to make some pacts with people and get what you can get. But while you're doing it, don't forget the $35K or more you need to spend on good Audio, Grip and Lighting Equipment. Or your super cool, steady, no jelly camera work is still going to look like crap and no one is going to watch your movie.:Drogar-SunGlass(DBG
 
Lenilenapi said:
Every test I've seen shows the artifacting of the Red to be pretty much the same as the Ex-1.
Click to expand...

yeah, i guess you just don't see the red put in as many of the same situations as the EX1 that cause brutal artifacting due to its size, plus it will hardly ever be in the hands of an amateur.
 
doofalot said:
i won't disagree with much of what you're saying. everyone on these boards - myself included - obsesses about minutia that tv and movie viewers couldn't care less about in theory. i mean the blair witch made 100M.

but it is the things we obsess about that makes real movies what they are when you add them all up.

and i won't disagree for a second that good audio, color, shot composition and exposure are essential, as is good acting and steady camera motion.

but i think jellocam is as valid a concern as any other, since to me, having your lead actor's face oddly stretched out for a half second is probably equivalent to the audience of having him deliver a single word unnaturally. both 'break the spell'.

but yeah all your points are valid.
Click to expand...

Mighty intelligent points you make here, sir.
 
since to me, having your lead actor's face oddly stretched out for a half second is probably equivalent to the audience of having him deliver a single word unnaturally. both 'break the spell'.
Click to expand...

True dat... but I must say... if you're shooting any camera in such a way (CMOS or CCD or film) commercially that an actor's face is oddly stretched, or if your audio is recorded bad as to deliver a noticeably unnatural word, then you're not shooting and recording properly to begin with.

I guess I'm assuming too much... this is a professional camera... I opened my new EX1 box today and on the manual it says "Sony Broadcast and Professional Products" on the top. I think that maybe because it's priced so low relative to other professional cameras that you have a lot of people upgrading from smaller min-DV camcorders which are DESIGNED to be shot with utmost simplicity because people are wanting to simply point and shoot and get 'good' footage without learning about aperture/shutter speeds, zebras, giraffes, DOF, ND filters, GND filters, tripods, stabilizers, etc., etc. I'm just assuming if you're buying this caliber of a camera you're gonna know not to shoot in such a way as to make a lead actor's face get oddly stretched. And if for some reason you did, you immediately review your scenes and if something didn't go as planned you reshoot. Even the best of the best of directors sometimes have to retake shots, and they have the best equipment and most skilled people at their disposal. That's where I'm coming from which is why I think the rolling shutter issue is way over hyped.
 
Buck, listen -- it may say "Sony Broadcast and Professional Products" on it, but that's no guarantee of any immunity from problems. Look at what the early adopters endured: vignetting, backfocus issues, chunks of crud in the lens, paint peeling off, batteries draining dry overnight, the right half of the frame going out of focus when you zoom all the way in, and infrared sensitivity that turns black objects brown. Do you expect any of those problems when you buy something from "Sony Broadcast and Professional Products"?

No?

Well, you got 'em anyway.

So -- again, use the product for what it DOES. Not for what you think it's "supposed" to do, not because of any blind faith in who made it and "they wouldn't do that to me" or whatever. Use it as it is, for what it does. And if it doesn't work out in the scenarios you need, recognize you got the wrong product and move on.

The EX1 can make some fantastic, razor-sharp images. And the EX1 (and ALL rolling-shutter cameras) can prove to be troubled by shooting scenarios that CCD cameras aren't. Learn what those scenarios are, and avoid them. It really is that simple.
 
Barry, when I say it's from Sony' Professional line, I'm saying that in terms of the kind of people who will purchase the product, not whether the product is "perfect" or not. I'm talking in terms of user skill levels. I don't think Sony's target market is the same for this camera compared to someone upgrading from their Sony Digital 8 camcorder for recording their kid's 4th birthday party. So I'm speaking under the assumption that those who buy this camera know how to 'shoot good footage' commercially speaking, or at leasst (in my case) are willing to learn it at that level (I'm hoping to apply my current photo knowledge to video although I know there's lots of differences).

Whether Sony makes a crappy or flawed 'pro' camera is a different discussion. I'm not a Sony apologist. I don't know anyone with "blind faith" in Sony, do you? Maybe you do. I dunno. If Sony has production problems with a professional camera, I'd expect them to fix them... if not, they'd lose serious business because people are investing a lot of moolah in their gear. Maybe they did lose customers over flawed first production runs, I don't know nor do I really care. But if someone knows how to shoot professionally, they'll get professional footage from this camera, that's all I'm saying. The only situation I'd be concerned about would be if I were using this primarily for videoing situations with 'continuous' flash for a substantial part of my commercial footage, I'd look for a different camera.

And the EX1 (and ALL rolling-shutter cameras) can prove to be troubled by shooting scenarios that CCD cameras aren't. Learn what those scenarios are, and avoid them. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the same with CCD having its troubles too. Barry, this seems to be an obvious statement. What we seem to be goin' 'round and round about is you continually pointing out that the rolling shutter is more limiting than it really is, and I'm saying it's not. And you're saying it is, and I'm saying it's not. And your'e saying it is, and I'm saying it's not... AHHHHhhhhhhhh... ha ha! People are shooting pans with this camera all over the place with fine results... look at the testimonials and footage. Yes, if you shoot crappy shakey footage (or intentional insane whips) you'll have a problem, no doubt. If you shoot what is commercially viable for the masses, I don't think you'll have a serious problem.
 
Okay, I see where you're coming from, and yes, one would hope that those folks to whom the product is marketed would be more professional about how they approach a shoot. Good point.

I don't know anyone with "blind faith" in Sony, do you?
Click to expand...
Er, no. That would definitely be a great big fat NO. :thumbsup:

But if someone knows how to shoot professionally, they'll get professional footage from this camera, that's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
And that's where the problem comes in, and why I continually harp on this issue. People who have been shooting professionally have been shooting on CCDs for the last decade or two. They have not been shooting on a rolling shutter camera and in all likelihood DON'T know what the potential issues are. They could be one of the most seasoned professionals in the world, but if they pull out an EX1 and light their scene with a magnetic HMI, they're pooched. POOCHED. And if someone doesn't tell them that there's a problem, how will they know until it's too late? If they're coming from a film background they may be thinking that similar rules apply (especially when people tell them "oh, the rolling shutter's just like film.") NO IT ISN'T. And on film, shooting 24fps is "HMI-SAFE". On a rolling shutter camera, it isn't. You have to change your shutter speed to 1/40th or 1/60th.

Professionals have been shooting under fluorescents for years with no problems. So how do you explain to them that all of a sudden, in the same scenario they've always used, now there's big rippling bands going through their video? It's different in the rolling shutter world. If the shooter doesn't know that, they'll end up hosed sooner or later.

So I continue to try to point out the differences. Some people take the warnings as they're intended, and open their eyes and look at the situation and prepare themselves. Some ignore it and say "it's all overblown." And some panic and think the rolling shutter means the end of the world as we know it. I'm just trying to explain to people that there are different things they need to be aware of, and certain shooting scenarios where they'd be better off choosing something other than a rolling shutter.

In any case, good luck with your new EX1, I hope you have fantastic success with it!
 
Last edited:
The only blind faith I have in SONY is with the CineAlta line. But you get what you pay for. :)

But then again, that blind faith is based on trying out those cameras...haha, so it isn't bling. More so just faith.
 
In any case, good luck with your new EX1, I hope you have fantastic success with it!
Click to expand...

Gracias, me too! And my wife is demanding I have success with it after all this $$ I'm investing in this stuff! Ha!

I see your point too, Barry, but again I just have a different perception of the pro market (and admittedly you're a pro in the truest sense of the word and I'm just learning). But common sense tells me it can't be THAT different from the still camera world. I'm a semi-pro still photographer. My wife won't let me quit my day job, ha ha! I would be a full time still photographer right now if I weren't married with a kid and another on the way (another kid, not wife).

In the still camera world it's primarily Canon vs Nikon... and there's a lot of good-natured jesting. It seems in the video world, from what I've gathered so far, it's primarily Sony vs Panasonic (with some Canon and JVC thrown in... oh, and RED blazing the horizon). In this new video world of mine, I'm seeing a lot more brand loyalty and people taking their brand pretty darn serious. Although it might not look like it, I have no brand loyalty... yet. I got excited about going into video with the intent of buying a Panny HVX200 and that was my choice, until the EX1 was announced. I wished Panny had come out with an answer to the EX1 at NAB, I was waiting to see what they did. Nothing. I'm also very excited about the Scarlet from RED because I shoot a lot of RAW still photos and I know the flexibility of RAW in post. Unless things change, which they probably will because I doubt the big boys will be idle, a Scarlet purchase is on the horizon.

But back to my point, which is probably weak, but still. I'm pretty active in the "pro" still market in terms of knowing what's going on in the industry. I know Canon dominates the digital market with their CMOS chips, both high-end and low-end and mid-end. Nikon was always CCD, and now they use some CMOS on their high-end stuff too. A pro knows the various lenses, their sharpness, their reviews from comrades, which ones are good, which ones are bad... which cameras have certain features and which don't... metering options, speed of the camera, ISO ranges, etc. Someone upgrading from a point-n-shoot often doesn't not know this techy stuff, but the pros do. They read the trade journals, go to trade shows, read reviews, forums, associations, etc., etc. They're pretty well informed about what does what.

It just seems you're implying with your statements like
People who have been shooting professionally have been shooting on CCDs for the last decade or two. They have not been shooting on a rolling shutter camera and in all likelihood DON'T know what the potential issues are.
Click to expand...
that a seasoned professional has no clue about the differences between CMOS and CCD? And would ignorantly invest $6,500 on an EX1 (and much more with all the added stuff) and not know the pros and cons of CMOS vs CCD? CCD has its limitations too, I'm sure they know them. CMOS has its limitations, I'm sure they know them. If they're professionals you'd think they'd be 'up' on all this stuff, it's pretty much big news about CMOS chips and their effect on the market. I've only been studying video for a few months and I know which cameras, from the prosumer to the really high-end stuff, shoot which format on which chips, etc. I would think someone who has been in the industry for years doing this for a living would know this too.

Which goes back to my point... a professional videographer can use the EX1 to get fantastic images and the rolling shutter issues should not be a serious issue on properly shot footage. They know better. That's not to say the EX1 is flawless and was descended from heaven in a golden box to save the world from bad video. We'll save that title for the Panasonic EX2. :Þ
 
Last edited:
Buck Forester said:
It just seems you're implying with your statements like that a seasoned professional has no clue about the differences between CMOS and CCD? And would ignorantly invest $6,500 on an EX1 (and much more with all the added stuff) and not know the pros and cons of CMOS vs CCD? CCD has its limitations too, I'm sure they know them. CMOS has its limitations, I'm sure they know them. If they're professionals you'd think they'd be 'up' on all this stuff, it's pretty much big news about CMOS chips and their effect on the market.
Click to expand...
Barry is only helping people - especially the "non professionals" - to learn those differences so they dont find themselves in bad situations. So I dont really see the problem with what he is stating because it is certainly informative.

I would even venture to say that some of your video knowledge came from posts on this board, maybe even from Barry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top