Wisdom required re: EX1

P

Parkhurst64

New member
New member hoping that I can tap in to some of the collective wisdom that is out there on this forum!

My background is in stop-frame animation, and have decided I need to come out of the dark ages (have only really been working with 8 and 16mm film for years) and go digital! I really like the EX1 for it's in-camera capability re: stop-frame - as it suits the outdoor animation that I do - and am planning to invest in EX1, along with MacBook Pro 17" and Final Cut Studio2.

Reading though a lot of previous threads - and not understanding much about 720 v 1080, progressive v interlaced, down-converting, different shooting modes etc etc - I am confused! Forgive my noobie-ness, but my primary question is this: with the above equipment/set-up, once I have imported footage and edited with FCS2 (and stored back-up on external hard-drives), would I then be able to burn good quality i) SD DVDs using the MBP Superdrive, ii) HD Blu-Ray discs using an external Blu-Ray writer (eg. LG), that can then be played on domestic DVD/Blu-Ray players?

Any advice appreciated!
 
In a word, YES! This is my exact setup and what I do all the time. Although I havnt done blue ray yet but my SD DVD's look outstanding on my 47 vizio. Ill try Blu ray as soon as the prices drop a bit more....Good Luck!
 
i'm sure ex1 would be great but i must ask. why wouldn't you just use a DSLR for stop motion? more rez. sharper. shallow DOF. better glass options. your choice of compression in post. smaller. cheaper.

the post workflow would be slightly more complicated but not by much. on the other hand, being able to shoot raw and choose your compression in post is awesome.
 
cheezweezl said:
i'm sure ex1 would be great but i must ask. why wouldn't you just use a DSLR for stop motion? more rez. sharper. shallow DOF. better glass options. your choice of compression in post. smaller. cheaper.

the post workflow would be slightly more complicated but not by much. on the other hand, being able to shoot raw and choose your compression in post is awesome.
Click to expand...

A good point but there is something about the way digital still photos look vs. the way a video camera looks. I can't quite put my finger on it but it's kind of like the "Panasonic Mojo" people talk about. It's the same reason why B-roll of locations etc. are ordered as stock video...not stock photos if you're working on a video project.

It's almost like the stills from a digital camera look "fake" and I think it has a lot to do with the intended medium and how those cameras process their images. Photos are meant to be ultimately on photo paper. Video is ultimately meant for displays.
 
adamr316 said:
A good point but there is something about the way digital still photos look vs. the way a video camera looks. I can't quite put my finger on it but it's kind of like the "Panasonic Mojo" people talk about. It's the same reason why B-roll of locations etc. are ordered as stock video...not stock photos if you're working on a video project.

It's almost like the stills from a digital camera look "fake" and I think it has a lot to do with the intended medium and how those cameras process their images. Photos are meant to be ultimately on photo paper. Video is ultimately meant for displays.
Click to expand...

not so much.... these days, many cameras are used to go to many different output formats. To say that the image from a still camera is only meant for photo paper is old thinking. I don't have the stats but I would bet that only a small percentage of digital photos ever see paper and I would bet that number is shrinking all the time. Prints are oldschool.

RED is essentially a DSLR that shoots 24fps.

the same can be said for the ex1 to a certain point. same sort of CMOS sensor, allthough much smaller than a DSLR. then add long GOP compression to keep file sizes down. nothing of value there for stop motion.

i will agree that a still is not the same as video but that's not what i meant. we are talking about stop motion animation shot one frame at a time. if capturing one frame at a time on ex1, you are using it as a still camera. it combines all your frames into a single video and compresses the hell out of it. if you shoot all your frames on a DSLR, you then compile them into a movie yourself in your software of choice. color correct to your heart's content, and output to the high end format of your choice.

i agree that you can paint the ex1 to get a cool look in camera and save yourself a couple of steps by using the ex1 for stop motion. however, this would compromise quality, resolution, DOF and would cost more at that. in the end, you'll get a much more filmic look from the frames shot on a DSLR.

compare the footage from the ex1 to the canon 5dII. the canon looks so much more like film. the biggest issue with shooting video with the canon is the form factor. so to me, for video, the ex1 makes more sense. but for stop motion, where the camera is always on sticks and frames are shot one at a time, a DSLR form factor actually makes much more sense. and since the image is sooooo much better and cleaner and long GOP 35mbs is out the window, and the 5dII is half the price of an ex1, it's a no-brainer. seriously.

i'm just sayin'....
 
here's some "stop motion-ish" footage i shot with my nikon D50 and compiled in After Effects. I output it to 1080p Prores and color corrected in FCP. I just set the camera to rapid fire mode which on the D50 is around 2 shots per second.

tell me if you think this would have looked cooler had i used my ex1 instead....

http://vimeo.com/4087712
 
cheezweezl said:
the same can be said for the ex1 to a certain point. same sort of CMOS sensor, allthough much smaller than a DSLR. then add long GOP compression to keep file sizes down. nothing of value there for stop motion.

...and since the image is sooooo much better and cleaner and long GOP 35mbs is out the window, and the 5dII is half the price of an ex1, it's a no-brainer. seriously.
Click to expand...

Two comments.

1. The EX1 outputs uncompressed HD if desired. What DSLR does that in movie mode?

2. By the time you buy L-series glass for the Mk2 to cover the range the Sony zoom does, the prices are a LOT closer.
 
I have thought about the option of DSLR, and perhaps have not appreciated some of the technical advantages mentioned. I will give it more consideration. The main reason for looking at the EX1 is that a lot of animation I have done in the past has involved large-scale models in outdoor settings, and the thought of filming with a single unit - as opposed to a camera wired to a laptop - is appealing (although probably not a good enough reason).

Also.. having an EX1 would help me keep alive a fantasy of being able to make live-action short films, filming events and little projects etc, therby expanding my repertoire (and money-generating possibilities!). Perhaps then I could afford to try both the EX1 and DSLR option.

Am reassured to hear Jeff you are using the same set up and that SD DVDs look good, with Blu-Ray as a further option. Reading some threads re: Blu-Ray and the mode in which the original footage is shot on the EX-1 leaves me imagining there are a lot of ways it cn go wrong, but at least there is this forum in that event.

Will take a look at threads/films now. Many thanks for feedback!
 
PerroneFord said:
Two comments.

1. The EX1 outputs uncompressed HD if desired. What DSLR does that in movie mode?

2. By the time you buy L-series glass for the Mk2 to cover the range the Sony zoom does, the prices are a LOT closer.
Click to expand...


1. Even uncompressed HD output is no match for a single frame Raw image.
I doubt he would use movie mode for animation.

2. Yeah, L glass adds up.
 
Last edited:
1. This assumes that he will be shooting RAW. If that is the case, then of course you are correct. However, if movie mode were not in the cards, then the EX1 would not be a consideration. If someone just wanted to shoot stills, then a video camera really shouldn't be in the conversation.

2. Yea, people always talk about the great price advantage of the Mk2 or other cams but conveniently forget to add the cost of glass. Considering the EX1 gets out to about 400mm, and in to about 28mm, I'd like to see what that costs in L glass.

Actually, B&H lists the 400mm fixed (f2.8) at $6900. The 28-300 F3.5-f5.6 (which is slower than the Sony Lens) lists at $2399. So the Mk2 lists at $2699. Add the 28-300 which is shorter and slower than the EX1 and you're at $5098. You've saved a grand over the EX1, but can only shoot 12 minutes at a time (probably no concern for an animator), you only have 4:2:0 color which everyone here says is worthless, and you don't have the lens reach.

The DSLRs have their place, and shooting animation may be an excellent use. But once that switch goes into movie mode, all bets are off.
 
And who wants to deal with 3-5 minutes at 24fps worth of raw file sizes? Another consideration - if nothing is moving when you shoot one frame with the EX1, the compression won't be working too hard. EX1 footage is good enough for Natl Geographic, so why not for a little animation flick? If you are planning on doing a real feature that the general public would actually see you probably wouldn't use either camera. If you are doing student films or mostly showing on the web, resolution isn't much of a factor. It just seems like you would have so much more of a useful all around tool with the EX1.
 
PerroneFord said:
If someone just wanted to shoot stills, then a video camera really shouldn't be in the conversation.
Click to expand...

Thank you...

Chadfish said:
And who wants to deal with 3-5 minutes at 24fps worth of raw file sizes? Another consideration - if nothing is moving when you shoot one frame with the EX1, the compression won't be working too hard. EX1 footage is good enough for Natl Geographic, so why not for a little animation flick? If you are planning on doing a real feature that the general public would actually see you probably wouldn't use either camera. If you are doing student films or mostly showing on the web, resolution isn't much of a factor. It just seems like you would have so much more of a useful all around tool with the EX1.
Click to expand...


3-5 minutes worth of raw files is no big deal. it really isn't. for that matter, even if you just shoot jpegs at best quality, the output still beats ex1 footage by a mile.

it's not about the ex1 not being good enough, just that it's not the best tool for the job in this case.

why wouldn't you use either camera for a "real" feature? 5dII stills would transfer to film or project digitally on the big screen beautifully. and we have just seen the ex1 used in a major motion picture, "public enemies".

i would agree with you about the ex1 being the more useful all around tool, for me. however, the OP does mostly stop animation with maybe some possibility of shooting live action here and there. with that into consideration, DSLR makes much more sense all the way around...

i'll put it this way. i own an ex1 and a DSLR. when shooting timelapse, i could shoot on either camera, but i do it with the DSLR because the image is far superior.
 
Chadfish said:
I don't know of any films playing on HBO or at the movies that were filmed with a DSLR.
Click to expand...

To be fair we're talking about for a stop-motion film. And integrated DSLR-video technology just came into play...what...this year or late last? I'm sure we'll see something on the air shot with one of these cameras soon enough.

Again, I can't put my finger on it but when I use a digital still camera and drop the jpeg or tiff file into my video timeline it just doesn't look "real." That could have to do with the downrez engine of the software or something but that's just my feeling with photo collages being integrated with video.

If I were doing a stop motion project I would shoot it with my EX1 for sheer convenience. Although if I were only limited to my D50 or D300 I would not hesitate to use the equipment I already own/have access to. If anything to keep my bank account in the black.
 
Well, my point is that something I consider a feature would be "A Nightmare Before Christmas". I think they would do it with a big nice camera that costs more than 3 grand. I could be wrong!
 
I have and love the Ex1 but I agree with cheezweezl that if you're going to do stop motion animation a DSLR is the better way to go. And the fact that some DSLR's now also shoot 1080p video its a no brainer. 2 for one. Cheaper lenses can be used if cost is an issue.

Tim Burtons Corpse Bride was the first feature length stop motion movie to use a DSLR:

http://cinematech.blogspot.com/2005/09/tim-burtons-corpse-bride-few-firsts.html

http://www.stopmotionworks.com/articles/cbrdstrpdbare.htm

The luxury of having a large still image you can zoom in on to get an automatic closeup or other focal length shot without degrading the image is something you won't be able to do with the EX1
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top