Two entirely different markets altogether.
and Jan is not and to my knowledge ever been involved with the consumer division.
and Jan is not and to my knowledge ever been involved with the consumer division.
HVX vs. PMW-EX1
- Thread starter scorsesefan
- Start date
- Status
Buck Forester
Well-known member
Thanks for the clarification, Barry. I wasn't sure what her role is... if she officially represents Panasonic, or is a Rep and speaking off the cuff, etc. If she speaks for a certain division, then apparently Panasonic as a 'company' is not on the same page with CMOS? I dunno. It would just seem to me that if any group would have the most issues with rolling shutter, it would be fully-auto point-n-shooters of the consumer market.
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if within a couple of years Panasonic will be offering CMOS models in the range of the EX1 market (hopefully even better than the EX1, I'll probably be in the market for an upgrade by then, depending on how well Scarlet is reviewed). But I could be wrong, especially if Jan has anything to do with it!
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if within a couple of years Panasonic will be offering CMOS models in the range of the EX1 market (hopefully even better than the EX1, I'll probably be in the market for an upgrade by then, depending on how well Scarlet is reviewed). But I could be wrong, especially if Jan has anything to do with it!
Buck Forester
Well-known member
True, but my question is if Panasonic is not big on CMOS, why would they be so apt to put an inferior chip in a camera when they already make cheaper CCD-based models for consumers? Why would they subject them to it if it's not necessary. Don't they care about their quality with the consumer market? And if anyone is gonna shoot a shot from a pogo stick or chase a kid around handheld, wouldn't it be the consumer market who doesn't know better? I'm just saying.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Same reason people put in "700x Digital Zoom". Numbers sell. Same reason the term "FULL HD" even exists and gets slapped on products.
But in Broadcast, at least to broadcasters, that kind of nonsense doesn't go too far. Broadcasters test the products thoroughly and buy what works.
On the "prosumer" end, well, there's some blurring of the lines there, because a product like the HVX is aimed at the broadcast and professional market, and lots of high-end consumers step in here too. So if they were going to do a CMOS-anything anytime soon, I'd expect it in the little 1/3" range.
Besides, that's really the place where CMOS holds a tangible advantage over CCD, is in a small high-def chip; the amount of pixels you can cram in there can, for many people, offset the drawbacks of a rolling shutter. In the bigger chips there isn't any problem with heat or pixel-cramming, so there's not much advantage (in a broadcast, 2/3" design) to go looking at CMOS.
But in Broadcast, at least to broadcasters, that kind of nonsense doesn't go too far. Broadcasters test the products thoroughly and buy what works.
On the "prosumer" end, well, there's some blurring of the lines there, because a product like the HVX is aimed at the broadcast and professional market, and lots of high-end consumers step in here too. So if they were going to do a CMOS-anything anytime soon, I'd expect it in the little 1/3" range.
Besides, that's really the place where CMOS holds a tangible advantage over CCD, is in a small high-def chip; the amount of pixels you can cram in there can, for many people, offset the drawbacks of a rolling shutter. In the bigger chips there isn't any problem with heat or pixel-cramming, so there's not much advantage (in a broadcast, 2/3" design) to go looking at CMOS.
Buck Forester
Well-known member
Panasonic already makes cheaper CCD consumer models. It just seems, Barry, that if CMOS is as bad as stated so often here, especially when it comes to wobble and skew and all the rolling shutter effects, if anyone is gonna wobble and whip pan the crud out of a little tiny handheld palmcorder, it'll be worst case scenario in this consumer market Panasonic is placing them in.
I don't know... that's why I was wondering what Jan might have to say. She works for a different division, but it's the same company. When I read her stuff about CMOS I'm thinking why in the heck would her company even go that route in their latest cameras? It would seem odd, within the same company, that one division would curse a component while another would embrace it and put it in their lastest offering? From the stuff I've read here, you can't simply "offset" the drawbacks of rolling shutter by having better lowlight capabilities or something, because I keep hearing how 'any' motion with CMOS induces some level of rolling shutter, and simple pans or walking handheld renders footage unuseable. What good are the other touted benefits of CMOS if half the footage is jello? Seriously, I'm just trying to reconcile this stuff in my mind. Not that it's a huge deal, I'm just curious.
I don't know... that's why I was wondering what Jan might have to say. She works for a different division, but it's the same company. When I read her stuff about CMOS I'm thinking why in the heck would her company even go that route in their latest cameras? It would seem odd, within the same company, that one division would curse a component while another would embrace it and put it in their lastest offering? From the stuff I've read here, you can't simply "offset" the drawbacks of rolling shutter by having better lowlight capabilities or something, because I keep hearing how 'any' motion with CMOS induces some level of rolling shutter, and simple pans or walking handheld renders footage unuseable. What good are the other touted benefits of CMOS if half the footage is jello? Seriously, I'm just trying to reconcile this stuff in my mind. Not that it's a huge deal, I'm just curious.
John Godden
Well-known member
I'd bet that a VERY high percentage of consumers buying one of these cheap HD/AVCHD handycams would NEVER notice the wobble or rolling shutter effects. Face it, these cams are designed on the cheap for a buying segment that doesn't have a clue about real high def capture.
JohnG
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, Panasonic makes cheaper CCD models. Do you know what people whine about them? Spatial Offset. Not enough pixels. Blah blah blah. You can't fit more pixels onto a CCD without either a) going with interlaced, or b) cutting the maximum frame rate. So, just like everyone else in the marketplace, Panasonic has apparently decided to roll out some CMOS models in the bottom of the line.
Me too.
Welcome to the world of corporate politics. Watch Sony badmouth AVC-HD out one side of their mouth, and out the other side they'll say that 9 megabits of AVC-HD is equivalent to 25 megabits of MPEG-2. Watch them proclaim how nobody needs 4:2:2, that 4:2:0 is plenty, and the next thing you know they're introducing 4:2:2. Watch them proclaim how long-GOP is all you need and intraframe is old and pointless -- and then, simultaneously, watch them introduce an intraframe-only codec in their highest quality recording system (HDCAM-SR). Watch them go around badmouthing intraframe all around the country and, indeed, all around the world -- while conveniently forgetting that their own DV, DVCAM, MPEG-IMX, Digital BetaCam, HDCAM, and HDCAM-SR products are ALL INTRAFRAME. Watch Sony for years say Solid State recording is stupid and will never catch on, and then (out the other side of their mouth) they introduce solid state recording in both SxS and CompactFlash form factors.
It happens.
That is because it does. It is unavoidable. The question is whether it rises to a level of whether anyone will notice. The milder the motion, the less likely it is to be an issue, the more the motion, the more it can become an issue.
No you haven't, nobody's ever said that, and to imply so is to bait the conversation for flaming. Please don't do that. Nobody has ever said that a "simple pan" has rendered footage "unusable." Walking handheld definitely causes more jello with CMOS than with CCD, you can verify that for yourself by just taking a CMOS camera and a CCD camera side by side for a walk. The CMOS will be more jello-y. The question is whether the jello is enough for you to care about.
Also, it depends on the performance of the rolling shutter. The EX1 performs better than an HV20, and both of them perform better than an Aiptek. Go try walking around with an Aiptek and see if you get acceptable footage.
A good question. The exact same question I keep asking. Because UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES CMOS footage can turn to jello, or skew, or get scrolling bands through it; under all circumstances flashes and strobes will result in partial frame exposures. To deny that would be insane. So I continue to advise people to find out WHAT those circumstances are, and either guarantee that they can avoid those circumstances, or shop for something other than CMOS.
It is a reasonable stance, regardless of those who try to paint it otherwise.
Rolling-shutter CMOS is a useful technology which is appropriate for many scenarios, and fails under CERTAIN conditions. It may, over time, improve to where it is a non-issue (such as CCDs have improved their smear performance to where, in 2/3" cameras, it is largely a non-issue). While we are in the early days, it behooves users to educate themselves about the situation.
And yeah, I'm getting a little tired of this.
Last edited:
Buck Forester
Well-known member
Barry, I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm seriously just wondering about the apparent contradiction is all. It's not an attack, nor does a defense need to be made. I'm a logical guy... I like things explained, and I like things consistent. I am just seeing an 'apparent' inconsistenty here. And I'm not making a statement pro or con about CMOS. That was a totally different discussion.
Barry, I'm not denying anything. I think you're mistaking what I'm asking. In fact, in this case, I'm GIVING YOU the rolling shutter issue. I'm asking that given rolling shutter exists, why is Panasonic going that route when they've been arguing 'for' their CCD chips all along. And you underlined and extra-fonted UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES... and that's my point... the circumstances (market) that Panasonic is utilizing these CMOS chips seems to be worst case scenario for rolling shutter effects. People who aren't aware of such issues and would shoot untripodded (is that a word? ha!) or shaky handheld footage. I'm not making any argument pro or con about CMOS chips... I'm simply asking about why Panasonic would go this route when they're very own 'pro' department says CMOS has a lot of serious short comings.
I'm not arguing this at all... I'm just saying, isn't this one of those scenarios where they're highly likely fail? Consumer high-def camcorders?
Barry, I'm not flaming at all. You've got me all wrong here. I'm going by what you wrote about CMOS chips, and that ANY movement will trigger wobble or rolling shutter and it's a matter of what you can find acceptable or not. Perhaps 'unuseable footage' was a bit strong, my apology, but personally I find any 'wobble' in my footage unuseable, but I'm sure a consumer might not think so.
I'm not arguing CMOS vs CCD or trying to put anyone on the defensive. Heck, I wish my EX1 was intraframe, I much prefer the concept of intraframe. I'm simply inquiring (not in an attacking way) as to why Panasonic and Panasonic-lovers have been so pro-CCD and are quick to point out the bad points of CMOS, and then Panasonic is putting CMOS in their latest camera models. Simple as that.
I'm not attacking Panasonic in any regard, nor am I defending Sony (I honestly have no brand loyalty so my question is not motivated by such things... well, to be honest I do have brand loyalty to General Mills... to come out with Cheerios, Wheaties, and Lucky Charms has won me over). Barry, I think you've got me tagged wrong. Call me unbranded, call me looking to be fair, call me curious, and call me logical. I come to this forum site (and others) in a sincere quest to learn this whole digital realm. I find the site, and your information, most useful. Sure, sometimes I feel like I have to sort through some levels of bias to find the nugget, but that just comes with the territory.
If it's corporate politics, and chasing the buck, that's fine. I was just curious.
I'm not sure I'd call a $1,000+ camera "bottom of the line", they certainly have a few lower end cameras, but I see your point. I've seen a few mfgs over my time employ latest technology upgrades to their lower/mid range product line and 'watch', and get the bugs out... we'll see what's going on here with Panasonic. I'm not sure.
And from John Godden"
You may be right... but I wouldn't call them 'cheap' though, the HDC-HS100 is suggested retail of $1,299.95, but we know street value will most likely be less. At that price point, someone will probably be pretty excited to see the image their grand will get them. I'm guessing, going from Panasonic's pro division evaluation of CMOS, they'll probably see substantial wobble and rolling shutter, especially since many of them will be shooting footage prone to it, and will notice it. But I could be wrong. Which is why I was curious about Panasonic's take on it. Maybe Jan can give some insight, but maybe she's just as surprised as everyone else, I don't know how things work over there. Gracias for taking the time to respond! Happy shooting!
Last edited:
I'm one of those people that purchased a AVCHD consumer cam. I work professionally in the film business. Yesterday i was at the NHRA qualifying races with my avchd cam. I whipped panned cars going over 300mph, walked around handheld. Lots of action shots and you know what? No jello effect, skew was there but unless I'm going frame by frame unnoticeable.
The images this canon HF10 cam captured were glorious. Much much better than my now sold HVX200. Have your opinions but cmos works. I suggest you give it a try before you generalize.
John Godden
Well-known member
Talk is cheap! Post your stuff!
lawriejaffa
Veteran
My god $1000 is def the bottom of the line for video cams... i mean hell if their not buck what is?!
Maybe its just the exchange rate... but 1000$ ain't nothing, so for the flawed benefits cmos can deliver, it seems a natural course to include them in consumer fare and isnt at all surprising that panny has. It certainly doesn't disregard the flaws inherit presently in that technology.
If Panny comes out with a professional cam that uses cmos (without any improvement over what we see presently in its application) then I will eat my own private parts
Maybe its just the exchange rate... but 1000$ ain't nothing, so for the flawed benefits cmos can deliver, it seems a natural course to include them in consumer fare and isnt at all surprising that panny has. It certainly doesn't disregard the flaws inherit presently in that technology.
If Panny comes out with a professional cam that uses cmos (without any improvement over what we see presently in its application) then I will eat my own private parts
Thanks Jan. Like I said, for TV, Broadcast, nothing beats P2. However, for independent film, these new recorders seem to provide the possibility of using codecs that where only available for 20k + cameras.
Its true, the Nonoflash is not out yet, but theoretically, Mpeg2 at 100 mbps LONG GOP should look better than DVCPRO HD 100mbps. Of course, its Long GOP, wich would mean the need to convert to a Intraframe, more efficient codec for editing- I imagine Prores 4:2:2.
Now 160 mbps Mpeg2 Intraframe 4:2:2, theoreticaly, should even be better than HDCAM, the industry standard at High End HD Broadcast capture (yes, there's HDCAM SR).
Buck Forester
Well-known member
Hola, lawriejaffa! I was just looking at Panasonic's line of camcorders and they have numerous models, such as 3CCD mini-DV models, in the $300-$400 range, and even in their "new" high-def consumer camcorders they have models with suggested retail of $799 and a couple at $899... so coming in at $1,299 for this latest CMOS jobber is actually the "high" end of the consumer models. And these other models are CCDers, so they're throwing in a couple new CMOSers at the highest end of their consumer line.
Well that's obviously relative... it ain't nothing for a pro cam, but for someone looking to shoot grandma and grandpa's 50th wedding anniversary, it might be a big investment for them.
See, this is what's making my point and has me rubbing my chin. To say it's a natural course to include "flawed" benefits in consumer fare sorta rubs me wrong, if indeed one thinks CMOS is flawed to begin with. Would you put 'flawed' chips in a camcorder, even a cheap one, when you already have "good" chips in the same price range and even lower? I would just think a company values its customers throughout the product line and wouldn't deliver a product they don't believe in because of inherent flaws of a single component, especially when that component is already reliably made. I'm just not following the logic on this one. No slams, just no make-um sense-um to me-um.
If Panny comes out with a professional cam that uses cmos (without any improvement over what we see presently in its application) then I will eat my own private parts
THAT is something I do NOT want to see, ha! Not even if you shot it with an EX1 on a vibrating bed! I can almost guarantee you that Panny will come out with some sort of CMOS broadcast camera... at least as an optional product on the market with their CCD stuff... maybe with a better CMOS but not one that still won't exhibit the inherent traits of CMOS. But if I'm wrong I ain't munchin' my private parts. No way jose.
I agree!
This has been one of THE best threads on this board since "Hydra"...
Thought it was slow.... My fault!
RDykmans
Active member
or since the VX1000 came out and the BetaSP guys all went nuts! ;-)
Based on what I've seen to date I like the Sony a lot.
I'd also like to see it.
We saw some pretty bad stuff on that cam just panning the backyard when we had one.
It was a $150.00 restocking fee lesson.
According to the press release from Convergent Design (link below), it looks like the Nanoflash also supports 100Mbps 4:2:2 I-frame only recording. I think this would be attractive to EX1 owners because they can get better compression ratio and color space. But I'm not sure how much it would benefit HPX170 owners because the color space is already 4:2:2, and the offset CCD's may not show any improvement at full 1920x1080 resolution. We'll have to see when the products come out. Also, you have to weigh the $3,500 price tag against any perceived gain in picture quality.
http://www.convergent-design.com/downloads/nanoFlash/Convergent Design unveils nanoFlash.pdf
It's up to 160mpbs I-Frame and 100mbps Long-GOP.
How much of a difference the Full 1080p makes is to be determined by testing both DVCProHD and the SONY Codec at the exact same times. Sadly, neither of these units (170 and nanoFlash) will be available until September. =\
How much of a difference the Full 1080p makes is to be determined by testing both DVCProHD and the SONY Codec at the exact same times. Sadly, neither of these units (170 and nanoFlash) will be available until September. =\
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Yep Buck well cmos on a broadcast cam etc, will be fine when and if they can get rid of the issues or dramatically reduce them.
I mean hell I would'nt kick a Red out of bed for f*rting! But its the difference between its useage and skill of most of their operators that make the issues less relevant for Reds than for EX cams.
What I like about the EX is full raster imaging - and hell, for a lot of my cinematography (on tripod or with less movement) then that could be just fine. But i think for its true potential to be met, it has to be used in much the way philip bloom produces his ex promo clips.
Once we've got an hpx500, when im in the states i may well pick one up eventually (so long as i can test it first!) So despite my partisan sounding tone, there is a lot I like about the EX.
I mean hell I would'nt kick a Red out of bed for f*rting!
But its the difference between its useage and skill of most of their operators that make the issues less relevant for Reds than for EX cams. What I like about the EX is full raster imaging - and hell, for a lot of my cinematography (on tripod or with less movement) then that could be just fine. But i think for its true potential to be met, it has to be used in much the way philip bloom produces his ex promo clips.
Once we've got an hpx500, when im in the states i may well pick one up eventually (so long as i can test it first!) So despite my partisan sounding tone, there is a lot I like about the EX.
John Godden
Well-known member
LOL.................. I'm sure it cost me a bit more $150 when I dumped my HV20 after about 2 months. At this point, I prefer to just consider it a bad dream.
Perhaps, there's a consumer CMOS cam that doesn't have these problems. ???
- Status