I can't get used to how STUNNING the EX1 image is!

Buck Forester

Buck Forester

Well-known member
I've been taking my EX1 out a lot lately, shooting waterfalls, creeks, wildflowers, etc. and I know I've said it lots before but the picture on this thing ROCKS!!! I just can't say enough! I hope to have my first 'short' put together mid-late summer, I still have some things I want included that I have't shot yet. But for nature, this camera is more than a dream.

Being a photographer, I had a LOT of new stuff to learn with video. I don't have issues with the EX1 motion anymore, that was primarily my ignorance of how video works and how best to shoot it. I turn image stabilzation off (I'm usually shooting from a jib, glider, or tripod for my serious nature stuff) and never use auto focus.

My biggest problem with video is keeping focus on objects coming or moving away from me while zoomed in (eagle in the distance then flying overhead) and auto-focus isn't reliable enough to know you get the shot, but staying critically sharp with manual focus is nigh impossible throughout the focal points. If anyone has any suggestions on that I'm all ears. Also finding GND filters that I can use on my Sony .8x wide angle adapter when fully wide would be nice. My Singh-Ray 4x6 filters don't cut it (but when I zoom in and use them it looks sweet).

I can't wait to get some of this stuff up! I'm more excited than ever!
 
If you've ever seen EX1 footage on a large projection screen, it is awesome, given the right camera operator and carefully-tweaked settings.

My wife and I just watched the Micheal Jackson "This Is It" video on Blu-ray (my second time watching it) and I quickly noticed that the camera on the right had a continual habit of showing MJ *and* the other cameraman on the left--who was using a PMW-EX1. The two principal cameras used to shoot 95% of that movie were PMW-EX1s, newly purchased for this event. That means that Tim Patterson, the guy on the left sitting at the edge of the stage with an EX1, had only a couple days to familiarize himself with the EX1. As such, he and his partner still did a respectable job, though they didn't nail the exposure right in most scenes (it was 2 stops over exposed most of the time) and the use of Cine Matrix was obvious by the crushes reds and muted colors.

What was funny (and annoying to my wife) was that one of MJ's staff must have been also recording video with one of those older, expensive shoulder cams with a lens that probably cost more than 3 EX1s, and that footage looked like a bad Youtube video next to the EX1 footage.

I read an article on the production and he shot something like 110 hours of raw footage. So that must have been all on SxS cards, with the 35mb/s CODEC, but it still looked pretty good.

Contrast that with the U2 360 concert video that my wife bought on BD last week, which was shot with multiple $50K HD cams with a practically unlimited budget at the Rose Bowl, which was grainy, noisy, blown highlights, crushed blacks and just awful images, not even HD-like. I showed a bit of that to my friend who loaned me his Michael Jackson BD and the stark contrast between the quality of the big bux U2 video (shot last year) and the MJ video was a topic of conversation. I guess the U2 production crew was still amortizing the cost of their HD cams from yesteryear, else they should have been using XDCams.

Note: despite a lot of flashing lights on stage, I never found my attention deviated to any rolling shutter issues. The footage looked great.

I could only imagine what it would look like had they used a NanoFlash or a Wafian to record HD SDI at 4:2:2 10-bit/ch.

Here are a couple of interesting articles on the event:

http://gazettetimes.com/news/local/article_5f879cae-c785-11de-975d-001cc4c03286.html

http://www.filmcontact.com/united-states/is-it-is-tim-pattersons-personal-thriller

Any one of us could have been that guy. Tim was just your average videographer, doing commercials and corporate shoots, when this event came up. Of course, he knew a couple of key people. And of course, he never expected that this footage, shot with two PMW-EX1s, would be the LAST footage ever shot of MJ. That last thought is kind of eerie..
 
basspig said:
If you've ever seen EX1 footage on a large projection screen, it is awesome, given the right camera operator and carefully-tweaked settings.
Click to expand...

I actually did last week. Was very pretty. Footage was from a good shooter.
 
basspig said:
If you've ever seen EX1 footage on a large projection screen, it is awesome, given the right camera operator and carefully-tweaked settings.
Click to expand...

I wish I could see it some time.

basspig said:
My wife and I just watched the Micheal Jackson "This Is It" video on Blu-ray (my second time watching it) and I quickly noticed that the camera on the right had a continual habit of showing MJ *and* the other cameraman on the left--who was using a PMW-EX1. The two principal cameras used to shoot 95% of that movie were PMW-EX1s, newly purchased for this event.
Click to expand...

So that's four bigger theatrical releases that we know of with significant portions shot on the EX1. (Public Enemies, Crank 2, District 9 and This is it.)
I bet there are more if we looked a bit.

The old way of searching for cameras on IMDB no longer works? :-(
 
I find that IMDB information is often inaccurate. In this case, it says the film was shot on RED. In reality, the face to face reaction interviews with a few staff was probably RED, as was probably the footage shot FOR the special effects segments for the concert (Thriller's grave yard scene and the film noir featurette for Smooth Criminal), but the rest, about 95% by running time, was EX1 and a few snippets of footage from an older shoulder mount cam (possibly a Panny model).
 
Sadly the IMDB info on technical matters is often inaccurate. Its self reported by the people that make the entry and can be biased for varioius reasons. In the case of This is It, they probably thought it was more prestigious to say it was shot on Red, even though very little of it was shot on Red.

IMDB used to be searchable to produce lists of films with a particular camera. That syntax doesn't work any longer. :cry:

My thought was that if I had a list of the films that even mentioned those I could track down more shot with the EX1. Other than that its finding interviews with the directors, cameramen, etc. Notice on IMDB it doesn't say EX1 for Public Enemies either, but interviews say they did use it for the car interiors.

I'm sure that many more movies with EX1 footage are out there. It would be nice to point out to clients that this isn't a little prosumer handicam, but a part of the prestigious Cinealta line often used in movies. But how do we track them down?
 
Last edited:
Even though I've owned the camera for close to two years now, I am still amazed by it.

This isn't to put down other cameras/stroke my ego either. At my income level I cannot believe I possess such a beautiful piece of machinery. Sony spoiled us all rotten when they put this baby out!

And it's not just the image but the audio too. And the usability of it. Shot Transition is one of my big time savers. In a month or so I'll be releasing a feature length documentary and the screengrabs that I'm using for promotion look like photographs. They look better than my 1.3 MP camera from a few years back.

Versus a lot of pictures on Facebook (which is where I am currently promoting it) they look like downrezzed DSLR stills. Insane!
 
The stills I get from mine are easily better than the stills I used to get from my 2mp Olympus C2000Z. The lens is MUCH better, for one thing.
The color is so much more vibrant, dynamic and alive on the EX series. I can't seem to get that kind of color on my 8mp DSLR. Furthermore, shooting hand held indoors, my results are better with the EX1/EX3. The DSLR has to have such a long shutter dwell time that only a tripod can make it work for sharp photos. The faster ISO on the EX series makes getting sharp hand held stills from video easy to do. I often shoot my eBay auction items with the EX instead of the SLR camera for this reason.
But making a Quicktime from raw footage with PhotoJPEG at quality = 97 produces amazing images, with post sharpening applied in modest amounts and some color grading. But today, I looked at my raw footage and it actually looked better and cleaner. More like RED footage, whereas the post-sharpened EX footage had a more 'gritty' quality. The raw footage was sharp, too. I'm really having to re-think whether I should sharpen ANY footage that's going to HD delivery format, even if shot with Detail OFF.
 
Basspig,

After reading your experience with the EX-1 and stills, I would say you need to get a better still camera! There is no comparison imho of detail or ISO in an EX frame grab and a DSLR frame grab. I am comparing Canons like a 30d, 7d or 5d. When I pull frame grabs into Photoshop the image always looks a bit haggard. Maybe it is the color space conversion but no way can you put the frame next to a DSLR of the same scene and say the EX looks better.

I know you like your EX-1, but this has not been my experience.
 
My frame grabs look like great still pictures of that resolution. Maybe your shutter is open too long or something. They should be sharp. Attached are a few frame grabs. (These are reduced resolution to fit here.)
 

Attachments

  • LionS.jpg
    LionS.jpg
    184.9 KB · Views: 0
  • GorillaFaceCUS.jpg
    GorillaFaceCUS.jpg
    146.4 KB · Views: 0
  • GiraffeS.jpg
    GiraffeS.jpg
    243 KB · Views: 0
  • CrocHeadS.jpg
    CrocHeadS.jpg
    165.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
I wouldn't go that far, basspig. My Nikon D300 certainly has much sharper photos and better color rendition straight out of the camera. Of course, the D300 is setup for the sRGB colorspace. What looks great on my HDTV looks a little desaturated/lower contrasted when on my computer monitor.

The opposite is true with stills on the HDTV. They tend too look oversharpened and oversaturated. My computer monitor is calibrated with an i1 Display 2 for sRGB, my HDTV isn't calibrated at all except slightly to NTSC color bars.

You're dead on with your assessment about the audio quality of the EX cameras though (on your web site). Even though I have a home recording studio I have no qualms about recording voice overs to the EX1. The circuitry built into the camera is phenomenal. I would record music to it as well if I had no other choice but it's 16-bit audio and 2 tracks are a little limiting, LOL!
 
Buck... I feel the same way about the EX1. Best dollars I ever spent. And Yes...Focus is a challenge when you have this super sharp picture. My Bible is Doug Jensen's Vortex Media PMW-EX1 Field Guide. Doug advises the use of the Peaking settings to have an immediate visual reference of when you're in and out of focus. If you set the Peaking color to Blue, you will be able to instantly see when you're in focus and out of focus without squinting at the LCD screen (in the sunlight!!). If I don't use it, I shoot myself in the foot all the time...
 
Duke, your images are displaying what I am seeing. These images are nowhere near the detail a DSLR can show with a good lens.

Here is a shot with a 30d & 70-200L lens. I don't think an EX-1 frame would look as detailed.
 

Attachments

  • img-gallery-4.jpg
    img-gallery-4.jpg
    152.8 KB · Views: 0
Well I'd say EX-1 stills are comparable to DSLR video.......pretty good, but not really made for
that purpose. But hey, there are a ton of people running around saying the DSLR video is
better than what you can get from a real video camera, so some turnabout is kind of funny to me.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Duke, your images are displaying what I am seeing. These images are nowhere near the detail a DSLR can show with a good lens.

Here is a shot with a 30d & 70-200L lens. I don't think an EX-1 frame would look as detailed.
Click to expand...

If you'll notice Basspig said compared to his two megapixel camera. You are comparing to an 8 megapixel camera (and 18 megapixel, and 21 megapixel). :laugh: And as I said, mine are at a further reduced resolution just for the forums.

Mine at full resolution against a two megapixel still camera would look quite good on the same image. (You're zoomed in closer to your lion.) Great picture by the way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top