i don't know about the ex-1
- Thread starter doofalot
- Start date
- Status
Buck Forester
Well-known member
I seriously doubt any pro would ever go, "hey, it's a pro camera so it'll shoot whatever I want, whenever I want". A "pro" wouldn't think like that. A pro knows a camera's capabilities in every regard... lens being used (especially if it's a fixed lens), how it does in low light, the media it records to, editing power required, what type of chip(s) is in the camera, industry reviews, pros and cons, etc. Wouldn't it be a fair assumption that a professional purchasing a camera does some research on the camera? And wouldn't go, "this is a pro level camera, it must be exactly what I want".
Barry, we get it loud and clear that you 'personally' don't like CMOS chips, and you are no fan of the EX1. That's 'personal' for you. Many professionals differ greatly with you... I've read many many reviews from professionals who rave about this camera. I've seen tons of footage that flys in the face of what you're saying about rolling shutter. You clearly make it seem that any motion will cause wobble and it's a matter of your tolerance for wobble. That is not the case. I know that to be fact, I own the darn camera and I've handheld it and I have yet to see any rolling shutter. I have no idea how you explain that away to me. As someone just said above, it's such an absurd statement that it 'appears' you have some sort of agenda. I'm just concerned that people looking for honest information about the EX1 will by mislead by your unfounded hype against rolling shutter... which DOES exist (lest you say I'm saying it never can happen), but it's not even close to the extreme as you portray it. I keep thinking when I read your posts that you are misunderstanding the position of those saying it's not so bad, but then you word things in a way that makes it seem more deliberate. We get it... you don't like the camera! Lots of people do. Next.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Whatever. I hope everyone loves their EX1 and gets fantastic results from it.
Buck Forester
Well-known member
You can't get away from this discussion that easily... you must first say, "Uncle", then we'll bring out the fat lady. :Þ
Barry_Green
Moderator
Nein! I concede nothing! 
Seriously, I stand by everything I've said here. All my points are accurate. I leave it to the end user to make their own decision, as always. The information has been relayed, we're at the dead-horse-beating stage here.
Seriously, I stand by everything I've said here. All my points are accurate. I leave it to the end user to make their own decision, as always. The information has been relayed, we're at the dead-horse-beating stage here.
Jeremy Ordan
Major Contributor
I personally am not a fan of rolling shutter... I was warned ahead of time, ignored it, and learned my lesson. That is my opinion though, your experience will of course yield your own results
Buck Forester
Well-known member
As always in these discussions, an innocent horse dies because of a couple stubborn mules. :Þ LET THE BEATINGS CEASE. Bring out the chainsaws.
DREWjoseph82
Active member
Haha, is that the guy from "Office Space" hitting that horse?
Buck Forester
Well-known member
One last comment... that beating horse footage appears to have been shot with an HVX200. It's pretty low resolution. An EX1 would've brought out much finer details in the grass and the guy's face, especially on a static shot like this.
jcoxshooter
Well-known member
It was shot actually on a ex1 and you can tell because the fonts are sharp (no movement) and the movement in the beating of the horse is were the ex1 fell short
Buck Forester
Well-known member
You may be right. Plus the green screen keying around the head is shoddy. The question I ask is who would bring a horse into a studio and then beat it in front of a green screen? What have we become?
emotepix
Well-known member
THE HORSE LIVES!!!
Despite being beat....
So what we're saying here is that there is no perfect video camera - like in 16mm there was the Bolex, then the Eclairs, the Aatons, the Arris, the Panaflex, the Scoopic...
Of course each camera was different, but if I had to pick one single camera to use for most situations, I could (and did).
What we're saying is that there's no HD equivalent here?
That we have to have at least one CCD camera and one CMOS camera accessible at all times to cover most of our shooting needs?
Let's not forget that in the case of the 16mm cameras, there were those that were smaller and didn't shoot sound (or allow quiet sound to be recorded anywhere near them either) and then there was the more expensive kind that ran quietly, have interchangeable this and that.
Pretty much all camcorders record audio, and run quietly these days.
However, if one put pretty much any pro quality 16mm footage through a telecine it would come out more or less identical.
Not so in the case of CCD vs CMOS and moving subjects, right?
So, what, a 170/200a and an EX-1 between them should cover 99% of most videographers' assignment needs (moving up to an EX-3 and whatever P2 camera has interchangeable lenses in the future)?
Could this be the end of ... gasp... the this-vs.-that-thread???
Nah, where would be the fun in that? LOL!!!
Despite being beat....
So what we're saying here is that there is no perfect video camera - like in 16mm there was the Bolex, then the Eclairs, the Aatons, the Arris, the Panaflex, the Scoopic...
Of course each camera was different, but if I had to pick one single camera to use for most situations, I could (and did).
What we're saying is that there's no HD equivalent here?
That we have to have at least one CCD camera and one CMOS camera accessible at all times to cover most of our shooting needs?
Let's not forget that in the case of the 16mm cameras, there were those that were smaller and didn't shoot sound (or allow quiet sound to be recorded anywhere near them either) and then there was the more expensive kind that ran quietly, have interchangeable this and that.
Pretty much all camcorders record audio, and run quietly these days.
However, if one put pretty much any pro quality 16mm footage through a telecine it would come out more or less identical.
Not so in the case of CCD vs CMOS and moving subjects, right?
So, what, a 170/200a and an EX-1 between them should cover 99% of most videographers' assignment needs (moving up to an EX-3 and whatever P2 camera has interchangeable lenses in the future)?
Could this be the end of ... gasp... the this-vs.-that-thread???
Nah, where would be the fun in that? LOL!!!
footage
footage
I have some footage of a runner taken from a car (approx 25-30km/h) shot 60p shutter speed at 500. I'm in the market for a new camera so I borrowed a friends EX1 and did a few tests. I mainly shoot sports footage so I tried it out with lots of movement. I'd be interested in your thoughts. I haven't tried the panasonic yet, so I can't compare.
I don't have a web address/server, is there any way I can get footage to the forum for users to look at..they're about 6-9 sec clips
footage
I have some footage of a runner taken from a car (approx 25-30km/h) shot 60p shutter speed at 500. I'm in the market for a new camera so I borrowed a friends EX1 and did a few tests. I mainly shoot sports footage so I tried it out with lots of movement. I'd be interested in your thoughts. I haven't tried the panasonic yet, so I can't compare.
I don't have a web address/server, is there any way I can get footage to the forum for users to look at..they're about 6-9 sec clips
well i'd be interested in seeing the footage, vimeo is a good way to go for posting your hd work
I LOL'd.
emotepix
Well-known member
Jon
I think the word 'pro' is evolving. Outside of the union sized feature film crews, with three or four staff to each camera, and three on sound per crew, everything else is getting quicker, leaner, meaner, smaller, cheaper.
The camera was a bastion of quality that's now crumbling or already down. Used to be the gear was all over $10k and so needed an operator, paid and trained, to work it. Used to be an apprentice had to know how to thread a KEM or a mag film recorder and work an Acme edge stamping machine before they would be considered good enough to be an assistant.
No longer.
I've actually seen footage with 'pros' making fun of a sync clapper, by giving the editors an AE who is clapping (applauding), and also tried to sync a six camera free run TC shoot where the first frame on tape is a slate already closed because the operator didn't know how to call for second sticks, or indeed, what second sticks are...
I think the word 'pro' is evolving. Outside of the union sized feature film crews, with three or four staff to each camera, and three on sound per crew, everything else is getting quicker, leaner, meaner, smaller, cheaper.
The camera was a bastion of quality that's now crumbling or already down. Used to be the gear was all over $10k and so needed an operator, paid and trained, to work it. Used to be an apprentice had to know how to thread a KEM or a mag film recorder and work an Acme edge stamping machine before they would be considered good enough to be an assistant.
No longer.
I've actually seen footage with 'pros' making fun of a sync clapper, by giving the editors an AE who is clapping (applauding), and also tried to sync a six camera free run TC shoot where the first frame on tape is a slate already closed because the operator didn't know how to call for second sticks, or indeed, what second sticks are...
lawriejaffa
Veteran
I know what you mean Kholi, with opinions like moldcad...
Buck Forester
Well-known member
Seems odd you would laugh at someone's opinion... he simply sees an obvious bias (and said it respectfully) and he thinks, as do many others, that there is no better sub-$15,000 camera. And he said it in a thread about the EX1. And that's funny? It's one thing to disagree with an opinion and say why, it's another to attempt to belittle. Oh well.
- Status