24p mode on the PMW EX 1

realdefender2002

realdefender2002

Member
Hello DVX users! This willl be my very first post on this site:2vrolijk_08:
Im trying to move on from my old camera, the Canon XH-A1 (sold it last month:cry:) to switch to a tape-less workflow. My two options are;

The Panasonic HMC 150
OR
The Sony PMW EX 1

Now Ive filmed with the above cameras (although I only have footage from the HMC & the A1 ). I am also aware that the HMC 150 has its own special look in 24p mode. BUT is the 24p shooting mode from the EX 1 visually all there OR am i going to get a more videoish look than the XH A1 or the HMC 150 ?? :undecided I love the EX 1 lens, LCD and the ergonomics (Hey now, I like the heavy feel of this cam compared to the toy-like HMC).

The motion of the video itself is the most important to me AND thats where id like your help in deciding the best 24p camera to replace my A1 from the two options listed above. WOULD LOVE TO SEE VIDEO EXAMPLES OF EX 1 in 24Pmode! Thank you!

K. Adithya Ashok
Writer.Director.Cinematographer.Editor

Demo Reel 1 (Productions from College)
Vimeo
http://vimeo.com/5530664
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7NV7CSH1KI
 
Last edited:
the 24p motion is going to be basically the same on any camera that shoots true 24p rather than a fake 24p or 24p over a 60i stream. both the hmc150 and ex1 shoot true 24p. use a 1/48 sec. shutter and there is the standard film look. the ex1 will probably look a little more video-ish right out of the box. sony doesn't pre-load the camera with tasty picture profiles like panasonic does. to a novice user, this makes the sony less filmic. however, once dialed in or "painted", i think the ex1 is capable of images that are more filmic than anything i have gotten from my last two panasonic cams (hvx200 and hpx500).

here is a good ex1 24p example. a production company i work with shot this on ex1. naked. no adapter.

http://ahillproductions.com/Music-Videos/tyga-cali-love

BTW, i checked out your reel. nice work.
 
Definately go with the EX1. Try CINE1 for outdoor shoots and detail off. Add sharpening in post. See if it doesn't knock your socks off.

As has been said here, the motion is the same if true 24P. Shoot with careful techniques and minimize the annoying aspects of film's frame rates.

Judder's not so bad if you are shooting a dark scene and further crush the blacks in post. You can get away with a fair amount of camera movement in that case. 180º shutter looks about right--just enough blur to mask the judder on pans.

But yeah, the EX1 is really without peer in this price range. If you can drop six grand on a cam, there is only one choice, IMHO.
 
I just happen to have some frame grabs from a 720/24p shoot I was doing tonight. Straight out of the EX1... no adapter. Basic color grade.

Enjoy
 

Attachments

  • Frame44202_clip0375_01.jpg
    Frame44202_clip0375_01.jpg
    160.6 KB · Views: 0
  • Frame44638_clip0375_01.jpg
    Frame44638_clip0375_01.jpg
    135.1 KB · Views: 0
  • Frame47024_clip0376_01.jpg
    Frame47024_clip0376_01.jpg
    137.6 KB · Views: 0
Cheezweezl:
I am guessing that you used a stock EX 1 with no adapters, correct?

It seems like the Panny is "idiot proofed" right out of the box, and most users seem to benefit from the already dialed-in picture profile settings and such. With my A1, I had to research a bunch & only after dialing in over 2 dozen presents to cycle through, the camera was where I wanted it to be. It still had a videoish look though before heavy post...one which I want to hopefully overcome with my next camera purchase.

Since you mentioned that you previously used Panny, I'm curious to know your main reasons for switching. Ive always considered the EX 1 to be a more professional camera from doing in-store demo's and such, but have been really underwhelmed by the quality of footage posted online by most users. You however, seemed to have nailed the "look" where many others failed. I cant wait to see more projects that do justice to this camera.

Thanks for checking out my reel! As a recent Grad, Im hoping it helps me get a job when I move to LA, NY or even here in my hometown of PORTLAND in the near future. Hoping to have my fancy HD Camera by then!
 
Last edited:
well i didn't shoot the tyga video. i work with that production company so that's how i know it was shot on ex1 with no adapter. however, i can get the same look. it's all about how you paint the camera and how you set your white balance.

regarding heavy grading in post, i find myself scratching my head lately as the footage comes out of the camera looking so good, i am not doing as much grading wise.

there were several factors that led me to the ex1. mainly it was the sharper image and full raster chips. i am extremely happy with it. i still have an hvx200 but almost never use it. if a client demands then sure, but otherwise no way. ex1 eats it's lunch.
 
Yeah Cheez, well put! Realdefender, I am still astonished at times how great the EX series looks without color grading & even with dof adapters. Beautiful especially straight into IOHD bypassing SxS compression,
I use F900s and RED and still the Image of EX1/EX3 turns my head!
Cheers
 
Last edited:
explain that to me please because it always consfuses me. It has something to do with dropped frames and timecodes, but I remember that while 30p is 29.98 or something it is still actually 30 frames per second etc

Gees I love PAL land where 25p is 25p...
 
panny cams also 23.98. no dropped frames. you still get 24 frames per second. count them if you must. 23.98 is a timecode thing...
 
PAL is 25.000 fps, and 50Hz HD is 50.000 Hz.

In the USA and other NTSC (and ex-NTSC) territories, it's not that way. It was, back in the beginning, in b&w days we were 30.000 fps. But with the advent of color they had to slow the signal down by 0.1%, so it became 29.97.

Accordingly, 24p over here is slowed down by the same 0.1%, so it's 23.976 fps. And 60i is 0.1% slower as well, so it's 59.94i. Every 24p "video" camera you ever run into is going to be 23.976. 24.000 is quite rare and would only properly be used if using the camera as a direct film substitute, intending the final product for film distribution instead of video distribution. If your product is going to be aired on television, you don't want 24.000, you want 23.976.

People still want to think of video as "30 frames" per second, but it isn't, it's 29.97. So when it comes time to number those frames for timecode purposes, that gives us a problem: timecode individually numbers frames, using HH:MM:SS:FF (hours:minutes:seconds:frames) notation. But the numbers are straight numbers, not 99.9% of the numbers, so the two don't match up exactly, because there are 30 timecode frames per second, and 29.97 video frames per second. So what ends up happening is if you use direct timecode notation (so-called "non drop frame" timecode) then you number each and every frame individually and sequentially... but the final timecode doesn't represent the running time of the program. An hour long program (sixty minutes of sixty seconds of 30 frames per second) would equate to 108,000 frames, individually and sequentially numbered, and the final NDF timecode would read out 01:00:00:00. However, because the video actually runs at 29.97 fps, instead of 30.00, the actual running time wouldn't be an hour! It would take 107,892 frames at 29.97fps to fill an hour, so the additional 108 frames mean that your program's final running time would extend by almost 4 seconds.

If your audio was sync'd for an actual hour, you'd find your program out of sync by 108 frames by the time the hour was over!

Hence why they invented "Drop Frame" timecode. DF timecode is designed to accurately represent the true running time of the program. It doesn't stress about numbering each and every frame sequentially, instead it will occasionally "drop" frame numbers out of the sequence, to keep the running time accurate. Every frame is numbered and labeled individually, but sometimes the sequence "jumps ahead". Every minute, the timecode goes from 0:00:59:29 directly to 0:01:00:02. Two frame numbers are dropped every minute (except every tenth minute). This keeps the running time accurate, so after an hour's footage, the timecode will read 01:00:00:00.
 
Thanks Barry!!!!

You are a wealth of knowledge. Just to clarify, no actual frames are dropped. Just the timecode jumps ahead occasionally. Correct? I think this is where people freak out, thinking they are losing frames which would cause a jump in the image.
 
Barry - you da man! Love how you broke this complicated issue (one that always messes my head up) down to its simplest parts.

john
 
cheezweezl said:
Thanks Barry!!!!

You are a wealth of knowledge. Just to clarify, no actual frames are dropped. Just the timecode jumps ahead occasionally. Correct? I think this is where people freak out, thinking they are losing frames which would cause a jump in the image.
Click to expand...
You are correct. No frames are "dropped"... the recorded video is identical in both cases. The only thing that's different is the way the frames are numbered in the timecode.
 
OK, so it really is 23.98fps you are recording. I still think it is very confusing at it means that the time code is not a precise reference to the real time except for one frame every hour....

Its all very messy to me, its a shame with HD they didn't take the opportunity clear all this up back to actual 24 & 30 fps and just make the conversion to NTSC as a very slight slow down from say 30fps to 29.97fps etc (like they just speed up 24fps film to 25fps with PAL conversions which is a much bigger change...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top