By accident I started reading a thread on the Panasonic forum about the Ex1 versus the HVX200. It was actually very interesting! To say the least there was a very different tone to the discussion than here. Our joy and thrill about the camera was replaced with people saying that it is more or less crap since it uses a rolling shutter. See for yourself here: http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=109191


So I guess my question is: Now that there are camera is out, has anyone seen any alarming issues involving the rolling shutter?

/ola

None so far..
Some want to compare the EX1 to the HV20 rolling shutter issues, but all thing are not designed the same. Even the RED is using a rolling shutter.

We used it under stadium lighting at a soccer game and it was solid.

Now, let the "yeah, but how about? continue.....

It's not going to continue on DVINFO. That other thread is getting some 'pruning' because we don't allow bashing on our site. We also don't appreciate our users posting links to other forums that compete with our sponsors for advertising and the like.

Why? Well just imagine if I walked onto a set where you were a cameraman and advised the producer that they should go hire this other cameraman I know about. Or what if you owned a restaurant and I walked in and told your customers to go eat at the other place down the road.

You also don't see your local tv stations promoting their competition either.

Thanks for understanding,

Greg Boston

The only thing I've seen so far is that flash bulbs will cause a bar or half frame exposure or something like that.
\ People have reported bending verticals on pans but only at such a high speed pan that it wouldn't concern most people. No one has seen it on traffic or ordinary images so far as I have read.

I'm not sure why there is so much hysteria about rolling shutter, other than certain people having a bias against this camera or Sony in general.

The choice to use CMOS is nothing new. RED uses it, Ikegami uses it, and Thomson Grass Valley developed their own for their Infinity camera. Engineers from all of these well respected companies made this technology choice for a reason. CMOS offers real advantages like no vertical smear, wider dynamic range, lower power consumption and improved signal-to-noise performance. We've already seen the benefits in the EX1. People seem to be very happy with the image quality and the low noise performance. But like with all technologies, this one is not perfect and there is a trade-off. With CMOS rolling shutter it's skew and partial exposure. CCDs have trade-offs too like more power consumption and vertical smear.

In both cases, the trade-off only affects very specific situations and you just have to be aware of them. Even the flash partial exposure doesn't happen in all situations. I did a test with my HV10 and found the partial exposure was affected by shutter speed and flash duration and even then it doesn't happen all the time at normal shutter speeds of 1/30 or 1/60.

If your work involves the specific situations that CMOS does not do well in, then choosing a CCD-based camera would be a good idea. But for some people to discount the entire camera based on these small trade-offs and to ignore all of the improved benefits while also insulting a product engineering department as essentially incompetent seems very strange or just biased.

You have to consider the source of the "wobble post".

No one who has used the camera has spoken of a wobble problem. Take a close look at the people who claim there is a wobble and you find most of them are just repeating what they have read. You will also find the the handful of people making the original comments make their living supplying info and support on Panasonic products. One in particular wrote a whole article on wobble that was meant to be an assassination of the EX before it was even delivered.

Funny thing is Sony dropped the ball with the lens giving them plenty to talk about without making things up. Though they might not want to run with that one since if you look closely Panasonic has had their own quality control issues with the card slots on a few cameras.

I don't think Barry Green did this as an attack on the sony ex1 at all, but rather an informative article on what weaknesses are in cmos and ccds and the tradeoffs for each. So you think these issues should be hidden and not known to the public. Do you own an ex. If so, go film a concert and tell us how it turned out. If you don't have an ex, then don't claim there isn't wobble.Sony mentions the issues in their own manual. Obviously, camera manufactures may be perfecting the known issues and reducing them to a minimum. The Sony ex1 looks like the real deal and I guarantee you that the rolling shutter is not an issue for me. I never film things with strobes or flashes going off. However, there Will be wobble to a certain degree. I don't think bashing Barry Green is healthy for the independent film community because he provides a wealth of information for many camera users across forums and books.

I don't think Kyle was bashing anyone, just making a fair observation without naming names. It doesn't take a semantics expert to verify his comments; just take a cursory glance at how camera discussions are framed in certain spaces on the web. A number of experts clearly champion particular brands, and while that's their prerogative (we all have preferences), they should expect to have their bias acknowledged when they chose to involve themselves in discussions of competing brand's products, and more so when their opinion is held in high esteem.

Thankfully DVinfo is the closest thing to a spin free zone in the video world, so this is the place I choose to visit when I want diverse user opinions. It's refreshing.

I don't think Barry Green did this as an attack on the sony ex1 at all, but rather an informative article on what weaknesses are in cmos and ccds and the tradeoffs for each. I don't think bashing Barry Green is healthy for the independent film community because he provides a wealth of information for many camera users across forums and books.

Before the V1 came-out I also wrote a "how CMOS work" story so I can understand Barry doing so. BUT, I added an equal amount of information on HOW Sony's CMOS 3ClearVid differs from previous CMOS.

So, the question is, did Barry fully understand the EXMOR technology and include this? Or, did he intentionally write about a previous generations of CMOS technology so he could show it's CLAIMED short comings compared to CCDs? Writing an honest "informative" story is fine.

One year's time is nothing in the progress of CCDs. They are essentially now at their optimum performance level. A year's time in CMOS progress is huge. Each year brings solutions to what were perceived problems in the previous generation.

I say "perceived" because most folks shooting with the V1 have no real world problems with rolling shutter. But, some may. I suspect that XMOR technology reduces the chance to near zero.

Compare the cost-benefit ratio with that of vertical smear from CCDs. I think most folks would rather be certain of no vertical smear and risk the tiny probability of rolling-shutter.

I also think given the comparisons of SxS vs P2 cost, 1920x1080 vs 960x540 rez., and 1/2" vs 1/3" that until NAB there is going to a concerted -- read desperate -- attempt to bash the EX1.

PS: Over the last decade -- every camcorder manufacturer has had problems with at least one model in the first month of introduction. I used to have to accept tongue lashings by my Japanese distributors on the defects they found in products we shipped them. Defects that our American buyers never noticed. I find it ironic that now we are the ones finding defects.

I want to defend Barry here as well, while maybe the tone of his posts was a bit defensive, it was in the context of a post that asked "Is the EX-1 going to kill the HVX". All he did was say wait a minute here are the potential issues with rolling shutters. He also said maybe Sony has solved these problems and he acknowledged that Red was also a rolling shutter.
Actually his posts were really infomative to me and he suggested a series of tests to put the EX-1 through for me - most of which it passed.

Someone else on one of the the HVX or P2 boards ( actually it might have been on DVInfo net!) was really putting down the EX-1 without having seen it at all, but it wasn't Barry.

I know there are problems with "any new technology" but that fact that there is such a shortage on Ex1s mean I would have to have until new year anyway which means I am going to put off buying one for a while to see if there are any more issues with the camera.

Love the excitement of a new camera like this but hate reading about the problems that begin to crop up as they certainly do.

Believe what you will, but you have to take everything into consideration with the post as a whole.

We had people like Simon and Alister who were putting the preproduction models though their paces. There was no hint of a wobble. They shot high speed trains, traffic, etc.. and never reported any wobble. Adam Wilt made no mention of any wobble is his write up using the preproduction model. (Though I am sure we all remember him mentioning the lens problem).

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=103037&highlight=wobble

Here is the first mention here of wobble. Now mind you the people I mentioned before were actually using the camera and could not find a wobble, but yet here is someone who found a wobble looking at the screen while it was sitting on a tripod at a trade show. Seems strange how that could be?

Once you understand that the person who started the "wobble" story is connected with another forum the strange thing about that clears up pretty quick. As fair and balanced as Chris tries to keep this place, that one is anything but. One wrote the story and another went all around the internet posting it. You didn't find it funny that the article we mentioned before made no mention of the fact that these are completely new chips in the EX?

Find me someone who is using the camera who has a complaint about or is reporting trouble with wobble. I haven't talked to anyone who is reporting it nor have I seen anyone "USING" the camera who has reported it. All of the talk of wobble I can find goes back to people who make their living giving support and advice for another companies product.

Personally I don't care what is written on the side of the camera, Sony, Panasonic or Fisher Price. I just want it to work. I can tell you the reason I haven't bought a 330 or 350 is the 1/2" chips. Not because I think there is a problem with them but I have concerns over the glass. Call me old school but I have always purchased really good glass then just put it on the front of the newest camera I bought. I can't wrap my head around buying glass optimized for a 1/2" sensor. What do I do when I switch to a camera with a 2/3" sensor? I have to buy new glass with it and start over? Heck if Pannasonic would have taken the HDX900, dropped the tape deck, fit the body for P2 cards, then reflected the lose of the tape transport in the price, I would have bought 2. Instead we got the 500 which I don't even want to talk about.

I am hoping the EX will be a camera I can have here to do much of what I do and rent the rest as needed. If it is not, no sweat I'll just keep renting. So no I don't have one. You would be hard pressed to get me to preorder anything that cost over 20 bucks. i am too old to be a guinea pig.

K

This turned out to be an interesting thread! My intention was to hear reports on rolling shutter issues but instead it seems to have stirred up some hot emotions regarding the alleged bashing of CMOS in video in general.

Anyway - not knowing much about wobble - but wouldn't i potentially show up in the shots that Sony have been using to demo the camera where they put it inside a jet plane on an air show? That sounds to me like the worst possible scenario for camera susceptible to wobble. Or am I misunderstanding the nature of the phenomena?

I have some real-world EX1 footage shot this weekend including hand-held and fast pan shots which I can share if Chris can offer some server space for that. Can most people play the MP4 files without conversion, or do I need to render out to something else like WMVHD?

Anyway - not knowing much about wobble - but wouldn't i potentially show up in the shots that Sony have been using to demo the camera where they put it inside a jet plane on an air show? That sounds to me like the worst possible scenario for camera susceptible to wobble. Or am I misunderstanding the nature of the phenomena?


LOL.... 10Gs... yes it would, spinning circles!

there is no visible rolling shutter.
look on this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=109146

here you can see a 60p slomo, handcamera, fast movements and pans in different directions. Even when you search for RS you´ll not see anything. And this is some kind of "worst case".

I guess the panasonic users discussion shows simply some frustration. And another thing is generally how to work with a true progressive 24p camera. Because of 24p strobing and shutter there is lots of things which look bad, even with the most expensive 35mm camera. E.g. you simply can´t do pannings with lots of vertical structures in picture, this simply looks awful.

provoking issues like RS may be possible, but does it make sense ?

Hi there

Following this post I realize that there are many issues that are a lot more subjective than I realized.

I have film and both CCD and CMOS cameras and use the one that suits the job or the shot the best. It's just a way to get an image onto a screen.

Also, while I understand that this is a mainly technical thread (and I myself am lined up for an EX1 - we have access to an HVX at work), if people watching our programs are worried about the slanting verticals on fast pans (like the arri film cameras always had) or about the 7 second pan rule, or about the tiny bit of top left vignetting, then I'd say there was something wrong with the programs they're watching, apart from technical issues.

Yes, there may well be a tech issue here that, I fully concur, involves sending back cameras if only because, at the prices we pay, we expect a product to work as well as the cheaper ones we already own. I've swipe panned a demo EX1 to death to try and get the verticals to lean like they do on my FX7 but couldn't get it to do that, at least in the viewfinder screen. And personally, in some shots, I like the lean.

Personally also, having shot with the JVC HD cameras and others, I think the crispness of the EX viewfinder is a huge thing - since the days of 60"+ viewing monitors, I've always carried a minimum 24" full HD res monitor on set so I can have someone double check focus and back focus as I'm shooting. Overkill? You haven't been bitten by that one yet. Very damned embarrassing to have a soft shot that glares out at you and everybody else -- at the large screen premiere...

(I use an inexpensive video projector at the output to my NLE these days when I'm editing HD, just to remind me about that incident...)

Finally, the 24p thing. After setting up a high end shoot with very high quality monitors and studio HD cameras, etc., I finally got to see pristine 24p 4:4:4 SDI movement on a large pro digital screen in all its studio lit glory - and to my eye it truly, sharply, high definitely, sucks.

Don't flame me, but I've been shooting film since 1975 and IMHO, nowhere, nohow does this 24p ever look like film. Here's why:

Film shot on 24fps has always been transferred to television standards when seen on the small screen. So the big name studio 35mm film productions have always been seen in interlaced video, with its 24 frame camera speed nowhere to be seen.

In the cinemas, on the big screens, a film projector has a butterfly, or a bowtie shaped shutter, flashing each frame twice. (It's only the cameras that have pie plate, (around half a pie missing) shutters that expose the negative once per frame, i.e. 24fps, or 24p.)

Thus what we watch on a cinema screen is a 48 fps image, not a 24 fps image. Never have.

Even the Steenbecks or KEMs we used to cut with that had 24 face prisms, had a blurring (frame blending) effect as the prisms shifted, so most editors (not using an upright Movieola) didn't ever see true 24p images.

So imagine my surprise when I watched the pristine SDI result of all this high end technology and thought - "what's this? This isn't film like at all. I've never seen images like this before."

Which, ultimately, is how it should be, I guess. Tech shock.
It's new technology, not just repeated (or simulated) old tech.

I'll get used to it (but of course will never shoot my own stuff at 24p without conversion downstream) I just wish they'd not marketed it as such, since I now feel that it's been misrepresented at best.

Love the depth and sharpness. Hate the fact that the only way to get decent focus is not TTL optical but still only electronic. [Don't tell me that electronics has better res. The day I try to walk through a huge HD screen because my eye can't tell the difference is the day when you're right and I'll change my mind. Yes, of course, take both techs and develop them fully and they will be the same. Eventually. We already have the optics. Film resolution is already down to the molecular level, not lines per mm or pixels per screen. It's just that everybody's way over paying Eastman or Fuji or the labs for everything any more. Those days are gone for good and I add my personal good riddance for the most part, not all, though, because I use film still for some shoots. For some shoots, film is the only medium to use. I'd hate to lose it like I'd hate not to be able to use a color in my pallette]

On a high end shoot I can carry my 35mm cameras, some film, a video tap and a monitor, done deal.
In HD there's the camera, big screen with video village, Apple cart with computer, yadda yadda.

I'm not even talking my S16mm camera against the HDV, now also with a 24" screen and a video village to go with, plus an alert assist with a sharp eye, because of abovementioned out-of-focus paranoia.

However, I hope that I'll get around to trusting the EX1 finder alone because it sure looks better than the others in its class. Having a fixed lens means less back focus hassles too. Being a film guy, back focus issues between lenses have always been something of a surprise to me, usually more to do with video taps than actual shooting lenses.

But HD sure is cool and an EX1 will eventually be mine!

Hi Chris,

agree with the most things.
But the 24 / 48 thing has the simply reason to reduce the flicker on a big screen, but the feeling of motion and strobing is still 24p! Its part of abstraction and is very helpful to do fiction / storytelling.
This feeling also remains if you transfer true 24p it to interlaced standards, because two fields just show the odd and even part of the same picture / progressive frame.
Also on a 100 Hz or 60 Hz Monitor 24p looks like true 24p.
The technical quality of 24p is bad, you are right. But If you use higher framerates or interlaced on the camera this "abstract" feeling gets lost and it more looks like a typical TV / reality show.

Also on a 100 Hz or 60 Hz Monitor 24p looks like true 24p.

Not quite. For it to look right, the refresh rate of the HDTV must be a multiple of 24; the new Pioneer Kuro line has the "24p DirectCinema" mode at 72Hz, and Toshiba Regza - 120 Hz. This gives much the same effect as the cinema screen 2x24fps (with 3x24 and 5x24 fps, respectively). The 120 Hz mode is also great for 30 and 60 fps material.

Of course the European models also have the 50Hz refresh rate for PAL compatibility (often doubled at 100 Hz to minimize flicker).

Believe me, they do make a difference!

Carlos

Okay, so I agree with you, but something is still very wrong. Maybe it's that, since we use a revolving shutter in a cinema, what we're actually seeing is a series of vertical wipes to black and back, instead of entire images popping up and changing, with no black moments? Whatever it is, it looks decidedly unlike a movie camera shutter.

Since I do reality TV by day and indie film by night, this is certainly an area that I'm very interested in.

But the rolling shutter issue, as far as I have experimented with, is really a non-issue in practical terms. The stills camera flashes are easily fixed in post and as I've said, I kinda like the speed lean of the CMOSs in fast lateral movements.

Maybe if one were shooting lightning? Don't have experience with that.


Piotr
Thanks for that info. Looking forward to trying some of that gear out myself.

I don't know whether this is genuine or not

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_g6cTLzjmc

Now obviously this was being looked for, it's seems a little too much which is why i wonder whether it is an EX afterall. He does state the shutter was at 180 at 24p and therefore this slow shutter speed could well yield this type of result. Would anyone like to confirm it with theirs, it seems blindingly obvious to find (if it is true!)

cheers
paul

Paul,

I watched this clip!
You know I must be wierd, but I don't shoot like this!

Should I now panic and cancel my order? Or just order a different camera with low res CCD's so I can make people sea sick by throwing the camera around.

I'm not quite sure what this clip should prove except it would be an unwatchable clip on whatever camera it's shot on. Taking this further, you could even open the iris fully, then up the gain and prove how the highlights are blown away I suppose.lol.

Don't shoot the messenger!

I posted it here to see if anyone here can replicate it. Whilst this is obviously an unrealistic and extreme result i think most people would like to know whether there is less extreme but more common effect here somewhere, even if it's just the partial exposure issue. I think there is a still image in one of the threads here with a slanted fence as an example. And yes there's a thread about the nature of the A/D convertors on each column, and it's been used in 10G planes etc,. etc,.

It does have a rolling shutter so at some point it will exhibit these artifacts, it's really a question of at what point and whether there are situations it will prove problematic. That's an issue of what you need to do with the footage

My concern is more to do with the wobble effect and it doesn't have to wobble much to make vfx tracking very difficult (i have a project in the new year that i will need to do a lot of this). Over a 1920 frame even a subtle wobble will make a difference. So i personally keep an eye out for any results that make my life harder :)

I have no alligence to any cameras, i have a Z1 which i don't like much and will probably grab an EX in the new year as it seems to be what i was hoping the Z1 was. Or maybe a red once the dust and hype settles (and you can actually buy one)

cheers
paul

I guess that clip proves the EX1 handles high G forces.

I say "perceived" because most folks shooting with the V1 have no real world problems with rolling shutter. But, some may. I suspect that XMOR technology reduces the chance to near zero.


Steve,
Unfortunately when the 3ClearVid CMOS sensor's rolling shutter effect does rear its ugly head, it's pretty devastating. I don't have my clip now but 2 frames are affected by strobes going off. Pixellation in the first frame (must be the compressor getting fried by the strobe's) and also partial exposure, then the second frame also has partial exposure.
It's a split second but it is noticeable.
I am also interested to see if the EX1 is able to evolve past this shortcoming of the CMOS sensor.
That youtube clip proves that the wobbles exist, but only for those who shoot motorX from the bike's perspective. I think the problem of partial exposure of the frame is the bigger issue for those shooting in scenes with big flashes of light. I wonder if lightning can get it to do the same thing.

I don't have my clip now but 2 frames are affected by strobes going off. Pixellation in the first frame (must be the compressor getting fried by the strobe's) and also partial exposure, then the second frame also has partial exposure.
I'm not sure flashes reveal rolling shutter. Rolling shutter is a very specific warp to an image. Flashes destroy compression even on CCD cameras -- just watch a red carpet show.

The fact is that every imaging and recording system can be provoked in misbehaving. If I flung cameras around I guess I might be concerned about issues X and Y. But, I don't. I worry about low-light sensitivity and vertical smear -- open air night markets in Asia interest me. So when the V1 works fine except I a need a couple more stops of sensitivity -- I can be fairly sure the EX1 or Z7 will work FOR ME.

I'm far more interested in technology that provides overall performance improvements. I'm less interested in worrying about some defect that might be provoked in some low probability situation. Those interested in dissing a new technology will be looking for, and posting about, the low probability situation to take our eyes off the huge overall improvement.

The utube video is bogus...
I have tried this test the day I received it, and also last night after looking at the joke video. It was posted by someone who does not own the EX1 and stated he tested it. Does the EX1 has some of these artifacts, I'm sure it does, but I have not seen any on mine.
hmmmmm

I'm not sure flashes reveal rolling shutter. Rolling shutter is a very specific warp to an image. Flashes destroy compression even on CCD cameras -- just watch a red carpet show.

There are plenty of examples where they do. If a high speed flash goes off whilst the camera is reading out the cmos frame then half of the frame would get a different exposure.

It is also true that flashes affect compression badly, but there is a specific artifact with cmos rolling shutters to look for

For that reason you'd probably not get any ENG types waving cmos based camcorders at red carpet events :)

paul

The utube video is bogus...
I have tried this test the day I received it, and also last night after looking at the joke video. It was posted by someone who does not own the EX1 and stated he tested it.
hmmmmm

Steven, I'm quite certain that Chris would be okay with hosting a video clip that replicates the settings of the Youtube video (24p, 180 degree shutter). Shake the camera in a similar manner with, and without image stabilization on. Sorry, but I consider the original source to be very suspect.

-gb-

Greg,
I'll get this test done by the weekend and post the results.

The utube video is bogus...
I have tried this test the day I received it, and also last night after looking at the joke video. It was posted by someone who does not own the EX1 and stated he tested it. Does the EX1 has some of these artifacts, I'm sure it does, but I have not seen any on mine.
hmmmmm

What shutter speeds did you try at, if you try slower speeds 1/24 for example does that make any difference?

thanks steven

paul

From my experience it doesn't matter much if flashes were shot with CMOS or CCD. Once you compress them for delivery on DVD you end up with a mess. OTA DVB doesn't fare any better either. I've noticed several movies where the red carpet scenes have serious macroblocking.

I wouldn't cast that example as being fake quite so fast, I did manage to get a similar effect from my EX1 too. In terms of technology limitations though this isn't one I'm personally bothered by. Compared to having a camera with grainy images or requiring a lot more lighting I'd go this route.

There may also be a way to reduce the effect in camera settings, if I still had the EX1 I'd have a play with shutter speeds etc, unfortunately though I'm still awaiting a replacement.


Paul

With the flashes the issue is they split a frame which looks like frame tearing on playback. As you say it depends how this will be delivered because compression down the line can make them worse but then not all footage will be compressed downstream, so for some it is an issue. But these aren't too bad to fix in post.

As Paul says i wouldn't dismiss the footage quite so quickly and for me personally i would just like to see where the limitations start appearing as it will affect *my* use, all i know right now is that there *are* limitations!

Having said that i wouldn't have thought shutter speeds as such should affect this because we're talking about the time taken to *read* the cmos in one go *after* the shutter has been open for X amount of time. Given a high enough read speed we should see the same skew at all speeds so if this footage is real under what settings do we see it. Same thing for Pauls footage (i only saw a frame of the fence but it was very pronounced).

Am i wrong about read speed vs shutter speed?

cheers
paul

I really don't understand so much fuss about the rolling shutter. I've been using my V1E with all sorts of shutter speed (even as high as 1/300th just for experiment sake), and frankly do not find it a problem at all - neither with the pans, nor the flashes. Yes I'm getting partially exposed frames when flashes are around, but watching the video rather than analysing single frames makes it non-issue. And Bob is right that most of "red carpet scenes" on TV do fall apart for split seconds due to the flashes, while I think most of them are shot with CCD cameras...So if anything can really spoil the picture, it's the compression and not the rolling shutter!

Cannot imagine the EX1 being any worse at this than the V1.

I'm quite certain that Chris would be okay with hosting a video clip ... Indeed I am; happy to host EX1 clips but am traveling quite a bit right now and thus a little behind on email.

Here's the test I did, I'm not 100% sure of the settings I used, I think it was 720/25p with shutter at 50 (speed).

The camera was mounted on a tripod. I didn't consider it to be a problem, in fact I quite liked the way it accentuated the feeling of speed. It kind of looks the same if you do the same thing with your head!

regards

Paul.

Oops... if it really was at 1/50th, than it's definitely worse than on the V1 (and I only mean the first part, with moderate pan speed).

Cheers Paul.

It clearly does wobble, but not so that it would really show in 99.9% of circumstances.

Worth bearing in mind.

Well, that's a reasonable test to me.
Thanks Paul.
It definately has wobble.

The soccer footage we shot did not really show any issues, at least not obvious . We were panning quickly using 720 60P. So I'm not worried.

For those who are, you may wish to look the other way until Sony offers another cam with these specs that does not have these artifacts to this extent.

Also, for those who tend to use their camera for 24P motion, fast hard pans are what's avoided in the first place.

I fired my camera up last night and tried some tests and really did not see anything bad. Maybe I did not pan it fast enough.
Since I would never keep these shots for display, panning the camera with earthquake movement and showing this type of artifact does not bother me.

And if I were intentionally going for this type of movement, It would be for effect anyways.

Thanks for that Paul.

i wonder what will happen in the real world, for example hand held, where you get the skew but also the jello effect up and down. think tracking motion out of a car or from an aerial shot.

I wonder if there's some combination of settings that is making it worse though. It seems pretty obvious and yet there are plenty of people who are quite loudly claiming no rolling shutter effects.

Maybe there is more at play here than the shutter speed (which i don't think should affect it anyway)

paul

I shot some car footage using fast pans and didn't notice it at all, it's only really going backwards and forwards that highlights it and I can't think why anyone would want to do that anyway unless your covering the latest table tennis world championships maybe!

Paul
Gun and run scenes could force that 'flaw' out. I think the point is that for many(perhaps most), it shouldn't matter since it takes extreme circumstances for it to manifest. However, letting people know about this issue (and the vignetting and whatever others) allows the readers to make informed choices.
Nothing could be worse than if someone buys a camera, shoots an entire production day and finds these problems in the dailies.
The flash/strobe disruption isn't isolated to macroblocking but it also induces partial exposure of at least 2 frames (depending on the strobe timing). One can edit out 1 frame without too much problem but 2 consecutive frames will affect playback.

You can see a vertical shift effect in the V/F on 2/3" broadcast CCD cameras if you pan them quickly. You also get strange tearing effects on computer screens when you pan, so it's an issue that been around in the CCD cameras.

If this is such a problem, how was Jody Eldred ever able to get decent footage from those planes at 10Gs?

You're right it's important to share information, but at the same time, also put it in respect to actual use.

Do you see these CMOS shutter problems while shooting or only when looking at footage afterwards?

If this is such a problem, how was Jody Eldred ever able to get decent footage from those planes at 10Gs?

You're right it's important share information, but at the same time, also put it in respect to actual use.

G force alone won't be enough to induce wobble. You can pull 10Gs just by doing a straight up climb if your aircraft is capable. The 10G factor would kill a tape based camera as the the inertia would unspool the heads and cause drop outs. That's what Jody is attempting to show with that footage. The extreme conditions and g forces that the camera can endure without missing a beat.

-gb-

True, but if you watch the footage she sure takes some quick spins! that's for sure!

True, but if you watch the footage she sure takes some quick spins! that's for sure!

:)

seriously though, there's no way a non-crashing aircraft like that can accelerate the ex1 image as quickly as you can be rotating it in your hand.