Is CMOS as bad as some say?

B

Bobonli

Well-known member
I've been reading a lot about the EX-1, including a recent article in HD Video Pro about the shortcomings of CMOS technology. In forums here people write things like "not for motion heavy work" and "not suitable for run and gun." I understand the engineering limitations of CMOS/rolling shutter but are these real, day-to-day limitations or merely things that show up if you are not disciplined with technique?

Has anyone had their footage fouled up because of the CMOS sensor under normal use? By normal I mean not sprinting down the street waving the camera back and forth since most people don't shoot under those conditions.

What I'm getting at is that every device made by man has some limitations. Are the complaints about the sensor in this camera legitimate day to day issues or only under certain extreme conditions?

Thank you.
 
All CMOS cameras are not created equally. Depends on the camera.

I've not shot with ex1, but I hear the ex1 and the red one are about as good as it gets so far when it comes to minimizing rolling shutter artifacts.

By most accounts I have read (depending on your definition of normal) you would likely be fine under normal conditions. You may run into issues with things like camera flashes, strobe lights, etc.

But, for standard motion, I've not heard too many complaints about the ex1. other cmos cams, yes.

The main thing is to be aware of the situations that may cause issues, apply that to what type of shooting you intend on doing and see what kind of risk factor your shooting style would be for the camera.

See if you can borrow or rent one for a couple of days or something and put it through the paces of your intended shooting style and see if it is an issue for you or not.

Later,
Jason
 
I think most EX1 owners would tell you that the camera exhibits rolling shutter/cmos issues under the right (or wrong) conditions. This includes high motion, whip pans, stobing lights.

I've done some tests with my camera filming some organic motion subjects that breaks the best of codecs. I've done whip pans over organic and fixed backgrounds. And yes, the codec broke up. But I don't shoot like that in real world. In *my* real world use, I have not seen any issues whatsoever. I have been totally pleased with the camera, and so have my clients.

However, I strongly recommend you rent or borrow one, and try it for yourself. I plan to do some camera tests next week. If there is something in particular you'd like me to test for you, let me know. I do not have a dolly or jib so I cannot do those kinds of shots.



Bobonli said:
I've been reading a lot about the EX-1, including a recent article in HD Video Pro about the shortcomings of CMOS technology. In forums here people write things like "not for motion heavy work" and "not suitable for run and gun." I understand the engineering limitations of CMOS/rolling shutter but are these real, day-to-day limitations or merely things that show up if you are not disciplined with technique?

Has anyone had their footage fouled up because of the CMOS sensor under normal use? By normal I mean not sprinting down the street waving the camera back and forth since most people don't shoot under those conditions.

What I'm getting at is that every device made by man has some limitations. Are the complaints about the sensor in this camera legitimate day to day issues or only under certain extreme conditions?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
 
I second Perrone.

Having owned and operated 35mm, Super16mm and video cameras for over 30 years now (including DVX and HVXs), I find my EX1 to be eminently usable.

The CMOS is different, like the CCDs were different (from film, paper, parchment, and drawing on rock, the original image media), that's all. Like the variable angle horizontal Eclair shutters were different form the fixed angle vertical Arri ones. You get used to it and move on.

I'm sure when the next imager gets introduced, some people will be wailing about how it isn't like good old CMOS was, etc..

However, one has to consider the source. Some of those people are actually making their money doing the "wailing". That's what they do, inform us the best they can about the various strengths, weaknesses, differences and similarities of the next best greatest thing that comes along. And lest anybody think I'm bashing anyone, I beg to differ. I personally don't have the time or the resources to buy and try everything that comes around the corner, even though I do this full time and have done so since I was 17. I rely on their words as much as the next person who may be purchasing their first camera.

But ultimately I have to say - what do we do? Talk? Or shoot?

Fundamentally, it's not the toys, it's the boys.

Let's make movies!
 
Last edited:
Thank you everyone. Lovely pix, Dean.

Not to compare my subject or skills to pros, but most of my shooting is like a "Dirty Jobs" type of thing. Following students around doing stuff, some interviews, filming in a hospital-type environment, a little moutain biking. Really a little of everything. Is shoot about 60% handheld b/c setting up a tripod just isn't practical in these environments.

But I can't think of the last time someone sprinted through a frame or I panned horizontally while scanning down the Chrysler Building or I ran down the block after someone while holding the camera. A lot of things people complain about seem, to me, to be extraordinary conditions.
 
Bob
You should be fine.
Most of these "tests" are done with straight pans against a picket fence, etc.

If you're following a subject, then the audience is usually following the subject too, which is usually fairly stationery in its position in the frame, even though the frame itself is moving, and so mostly people don't even see the jaggies, jello etc..

Check this out by watching a crane down to follow, chopper shot to follow, pan to follow etc shot in your fave high end feature film. Now rewind and just look at the background, not at the person, car, or whatever the shot is following. You'll see plenty of jaggies, flickering, etc.

But if you notice that when you're first watching it, then you're not watching the subject. And that usually means the film's in more than technical trouble.

JM2c, YMMV, etc.
Cheers
Chris
 
Just like to add that I, too, read both parts of the article on CCD vs. CMOS in HD Video Pro. While the technical info was more or less accurate, I was left with the feeling that the article's writers were biased towards CCDs. I do not believe that article was impartial at all, and I personally feel it's not a fair representation of shooting with a CMOS camera.

-Jeff
 
I think the CMOS sensors def are interesting if you are shotting anywhere with flashes, etc. But I shoot a lot of bmx and so far the stuff I have shot looks good. There is fast motion and it really isn't anything too "Terrible" in it. I agree witht hat HDVIDEOPRO article being very bias. They crapped all over the CMOS sensor and it really seemed one sided.
 
Hey Dean,
You're really pushing me towards an EX3... Beautiful shots, especially Cindy Paliracio! She and I used to work together at KHNL.
 
We haven't really seen any "nasty stuff" with our EX1 and EX3, but I've noticed in 24p and 30p modes that the moire effect seems a little more pronounced, but not that much.

Also, it's very rare that whip pans are really used with any camera. I've heard people avoid it at all costs on everything from DV up to 35mm film. I know HDV doesn't handle it well. But I've seen great stuff from HDV!

David
 
Hi Carl...

Everything was shot in 1080p30.

DCarstens...

Wow. Small world! When I was a news photographer at the Star-Bulletin I knew quite a few of the TV news cameramen (and camerawomen).
 
To be honest, I think many of the people complaining about CMOS cameras are the ones who don't use them, and insecurely feel that their CCD camera is somehow under attack and needs to be defended.

As Barry once said, we long ago passed the point of "good enough". While one can find flaws with any techonlogy, the wonder any of these cameras can do is something to behold.
 
snowleopard said:
To be honest, I think many of the people complaining about CMOS cameras are the ones who don't use them, and insecurely feel that their CCD camera is somehow under attack and needs to be defended.

As Barry once said, we long ago passed the point of "good enough". While one can find flaws with any techonlogy, the wonder any of these cameras can do is something to behold.
Click to expand...

I agree. There's a lot of mudslinging and at some level it boils down to a gas vs oil, Canon vs Nikon sort of debate. I just don't want to be saddled with a $5000 tool that has issues that will impact my product.

Either CCD or CMOS camera will be a quantum leap over what I'm using now in terms of control and quality.
 
If you are referring to rolling shutter artifacts with regard to flash, yes, this camera is horrible. I watch my footage and am trying to look past it, but it looks like ass.

side by side, my Z1 picture looks murky and broken up, especially in low light. BUT, the CCDs perform beautifully, and I sure wish Sony had used them in the EX series.
 
Z1Scottie said:
...the CCDs perform beautifully, and I sure wish Sony had used them in the EX series.
Click to expand...

The EX1 series would not be possible with CCDs. You can't put 1080p native CCD imagers in a camera this size. That's why no one has them.

You pay your money, and you take your choice. 1/2" CMOS 1080 imagers, or 1/3" CCD SD imagers.

Can't have both with today's production technology.
 
PerroneFord said:
The EX1 series would not be possible with CCDs. You can't put 1080p native CCD imagers in a camera this size. That's why no one has them.

You pay your money, and you take your choice. 1/2" CMOS 1080 imagers, or 1/3" CCD SD imagers.

Can't have both with today's production technology.
Click to expand...


amen..

I would not of bought the EX if it had Z1 sensors regardless if they used the XDCAM codec.

HDTV sets are widely available at 1920x1080P, I want a camera that can at least match this on a one-to-one pixel level. The EX1/EX3 does this.
As an EX owner if you have not seen your footage played on a BluRay player like the PS3 straight to a 1080P set, it's unreal.
 
Stevet said:
amen..

I would not of bought the EX if it had Z1 sensors regardless if they used the XDCAM codec.

HDTV sets are widely available at 1920x1080P, I want a camera that can at least match this on a one-to-one pixel level. The EX1/EX3 does this.
As an EX owner if you have not seen your footage played on a BluRay player like the PS3 straight to a 1080P set, it's unreal.
Click to expand...

I have a Sony Vaio 17" Notebbok capable of 1080P display. Some of my clients who watched the EX1 footage on Blu-Ray only got 1 thing to say --> Wow, this camera can really captured image better than our eyes can see
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top