Rolling Shutter CMOS Artifacts

nudge said:
Barry do you have any idea how RED is dealing with the rolllng shutter problems? Jannard's answer was that "we use a rapid reset sensor system which is much faster than a typical CMOS rolling shutter. It is a bit slower than film so it is easier (not much) to induce skew with RED than with film. But it is MUCH better than a standard rolling shutter."
Click to expand...

I was cruising around on reduser and saw that Macgregor just posted some examples of really horrible skew from the Red. I haven't seen any of the rolling shutter issues addressed much over there but this thread might be an interesting one to follow:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8612
 
Rolling shutter is rolling shutter, I've never encountered a rolling-shutter camera that didn't have the exact same issues. Maybe a slightly lesser degree here or there, but -- if you buy into the rolling shutter you *have* to expect this type of stuff to happen.
 
Right. I'm actually surprised I've seen so little mention of it over there...I mean, it's not fair to say that skew or other rolling shutter artifacts are the Red's achilles heel because it's not the only pro camera out there that uses one. But it sure continues to seem like a significant reason not to invest in Red, or any other rolling shutter design.

I think Jim might have made it sound as if they had lessened the problem to a great degree but honestly the amount of skew exhibited in Macgregor's test footage is enough to turn me off of the camera. Handheld, fast motion, vibration and whip pans are part of cinema today. No way around it.

EDIT

It's interesting to me that several of the commentors in that thread seem to have been completely unaware of this phenomenon. The misinformation is kind of startling. One person asked if maybe this was just limited to a certain number of faulty cameras...
 
Last edited:
Jared Meyer said:
But it seems like it would be a huge reason not to invest in Red, or any other rolling shutter design.
Click to expand...

Apparently not huge enough ;)
All of these sub 10K cameras have their good and bad. If this is not good enough for you, wait it out for something new. Maybe Panny's got something under their sleeves.
 
Stevet said:
Apparently not huge enough ;)
All of these sub 10K cameras have their good and bad. If this is not good enough for you, wait it out for something new. Maybe Panny's got something under their sleeves.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Hope I don't sound like a whiner. Just thinking it all over. :)
 
No... It's legit man.
Rolling shutter artifacts are not pretty.
I stay away from whip pans on my EX1.
 
show that footage to someone who is not a cinematographer, and ask if they notice anything strange. they'll mention that the camera is flying all over the place, and a dude is jumping around. but they will not notice the skew. i think most of the situations where skew comes into play, it's only something noticed by professionals.
 
Well that was shot at 1/2000 shutter so no motion blur which would make it less noticeable. The other thing is it has been talked about many times over there ever since the Peter Jackson short showed a bent wheel on a whip pan over a year ago. The people there know it, discussed it, and accepted it as part of the deal. Jannard himself said he could still lessen it by about 10% .
And personally after all the complaints sent to Roger Ebert and other sites about the camerawork making them nauseous in Cloverfield and Bourne, that type of shooting may be on its way out.
 
aschocken said:
i think most of the situations where skew comes into play, it's only something noticed by professionals.
Click to expand...

Most, yeah I agree. Nut if this small scene happened to appear on a big screen, many people would pick up on it a little, it looks unatural. But I dont think they would care or give it more than a passing thought.

One thing though, I really dont think the EX is any worse than this.

And Mico, Bourne is horrible agreed. But these shots werent that bad I didnt think. Pretty typical of action components in a lot of TV, where I think a lof Reds market will be.
 
mico said:
And personally after all the complaints sent to Roger Ebert and other sites about the camerawork making them nauseous in Cloverfield and Bourne, that type of shooting may be on its way out.
Click to expand...
One can only hope...:thumbsup:
 
Noel Evans said:
And Mico, Bourne is horrible agreed. But these shots werent that bad I didnt think. Pretty typical of action components in a lot of TV, where I think a lof Reds market will be.
Click to expand...

So lets see it at 1/48th. The LART red test movies are available for all to see on Vuze. With lots of TV like action shots and I couldn't see any noticeable skew. TV and film action is not shot at 1/2000.
 
Just a quick question, The issues with the rolling shutter and the flash,

I know nothing can completely solve this problem but it looks like it may be possible to make it less apparent with some post correction.

Maybe someone will come out with a FCP plugin or filter that can counter act it.
 
Depends on the situation. If you're talking about one flash here or there, people have suggested overlaying a white transparent image over the whole frame to minimize the effect. But if you're talking about constant strobes like the cop car footage, ain't nothin' gonna fix that.
 
Yeah, I mean, I'm buying the Ex and want to shoot music videos, live shows, short films etc,
Obviously any place were there are crowds your going to get cameras.

I'm not going to be shooting Police Cars and Fashion shows, so I think it will work out ok. Sooner or later there will be a good plugin that will counter act the effect to some degree.
 
i think most of the situations where skew comes into play, it's only something noticed by professionals.
Click to expand...

No offense but in that case why bother with a high end camera.
 
because there are a lot of things other than skew that actually are noticed by your viewers. just because they don't notice rolling shutter problems doesn't mean they can't recognize nice cinematography when they see it.
 
Lately I am watching more papparazi footage with these cameramen sporting their new Sony XDCAM EX cameras . And the footage still looks terrible like a mechanics strobe light for adjusting your ignition timing. I guess these television shows are more impressed with the camera equipment then they are with the actual footage. It seems that big resolution numbers and big half inch chips sell the camera even if the image quality goes to hell for the intended usage.
 
androbot,

How do you know that the paparazzi are using EX1's? Where do you get your info? Who are "these television shows?" What are you talking about?

I have certainly seen some cameraphone footage of Brittany Spears that has horrible CMOS artifacting, but that's a combination of both partial exposure and the cameraphone's inablility to deal with bright flashes in general - overexposure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top