Perrone, you would know more than me, but does "skew" or any rolling shutter come into play with the EX1 on a very slow, dramatic, creeping horizontal pan shot from a dolly? Or are you talking more generally?

Based on what I've seen, it appears to come into play any time you're moving the camera, just to varying degrees.

Based on what I've seen, it appears to come into play any time you're moving the camera, just to varying degrees.

Yikes, if that's the case then the drop in resolution is not from codecs but straight from the CMOS chips themselves and NanoFlash would not solve the el problemo?

since the rolling shutter direction vector is "vertical", skew occurs only with orthogonal pans....for the more artistic minded, this means horizontal pans, only, unless, of course, you're in the habit of shooting the cam at a 90 degree angle, in which case it will be skew in the vertical direction, only.

Now Buck, I know you're trying to understand, but, you're bordering on being ignorant. Skew is not not not even closely related to compression artifacting. Two completely different phenomena. Even RED has the rolling shutter problem, and you can get this feature for over $20K.

With a shutter scan rate of 60Hz, it's not too difficult to see some skew in a frame pan. On the other hand, if you're shooting wildlife with a large telephoto lens, the field of regard is so small that image skew is negligible. Assuming, of course, you have a stable tripod for mounting your videocam. I could go thru some numbers to show you this is the case, but, I know you accept only empirical evidence, so I won't. Just try it.

I'm not ignorant about skew being "horizontal", that's a no brainer. Not even sure why you mentioned it? I think I saw that question on "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader" and everyone got it right. :Þ

Bill, I also know skew is not codec related. It's CMOS chips. I'm really lost on why you're saying this because nowhere was it implied otherwise? I know codecs and chips are separate thingies with separate issues. I know RED uses CMOS too. I may be ugly, but I'm stupid. Ha!

Which goes back to my question posed to Perrone... if the drop in resolution I'm seeing on 'horizontal' movement is because of 'CMOS skew' (not codec), then bypassing the native EX1 codec with NanoFlash wouldn't be my huckleberry to solve the resolution drop issue, because it's coming from the source, the CMOS chip.

See the confusion, Bill? Some say, "the EX1 codec is fine, it's what you're viewing it on that creates the motion resolution drop". Others say, "it's the 35 mbps Long GOP used in the EX1, bypass this with the NanoFlash and you should be fine". Others say, "this is just motion and video at work, period." And here Perrone is saying (if I'm reading him correctly, hence my question to him), "this resolution drop is caused by skewing directly from the CMOS chip". Even on very s-l-o-w pans. If so, then no codec will help, right?

Which option is the case so I can stop being ignorant? :Þ

Buck,

It's as I said before. There are multiple things going on with what you're seeing. And because you can't articulate it precisely, we have to look at the entire image of the EX1 versus the cameras you are comparing it to.. namely the Varicam and the F900.

Those are CCD cameras, so the CMOS artifacting and issues are going to be "different" between your camera and those cameras.

You are also shooting long GOP, and that is causing some of what you see. And to bring that in line with the cameras you are comparing to, the Nanoflash or a similar SDI recorder is necessary.

They are using better glass than you are, and that is going to make some small difference as well. Though not nearly as much as the other two.

They are more than likely NOT shooting 24p. And that is certainly responsible for some of what you've seen. Maybe more than anything else. Change to 60i or 30p and you should see a difference.

So there is no silver bullet. Will the nanoflash remove some of the problem. Most certainly. Will it turn your $6k camera into an F900 clone? No.

So to me, you're going to be in one of three places.

1. Don't buy anything else, change to 60i, shoot and be happy.

2. Buy the Nanoflash, and remove the CODEC related issues and live with the rolling shutter ones.

3. Sell the whole lot, and buy an F900.

You pay your money, and you take your choice.


Which goes back to my question posed to Perrone... if the drop in resolution I'm seeing on 'horizontal' movement is because of 'CMOS skew' (not codec), then bypassing the native EX1 codec with NanoFlash wouldn't be my huckleberry to solve the resolution drop issue, because it's coming from the source, the CMOS chip.

See the confusion, Bill? Some say, "the EX1 codec is fine, it's what you're viewing it on that creates the motion resolution drop". Others say, "it's the 35 mbps Long GOP used in the EX1, bypass this with the NanoFlash and you should be fine". Others say, "this is just motion and video at work, period." And here Perrone is saying (if I'm reading him correctly, hence my question to him), "this resolution drop is caused by skewing directly from the CMOS chip". Even on very s-l-o-w pans. If so, then no codec will help, right?

Which option is the case so I can stop being ignorant? :Þ

So to me, you're going to be in one of three places.

1. Don't buy anything else, change to 60i, shoot and be happy.

2. Buy the Nanoflash, and remove the CODEC related issues and live with the rolling shutter ones.

3. Sell the whole lot, and buy an F900.

You pay your money, and you take your choice.

Hi Perrone-
Naturally, we would make the case that the nanoFlash provides the best "bang for the buck", as the EX1 + nanoFlash cost <<< F900 cost, but not substantially less in overall video quality. Or for about 10% of the cost, you'll arguable get 80-90% of the video quality. Not a bad tradeoff.

Perrone, gracias! Just a quick few things and I'll call it a day until I get my hands on the NanoFlash:

I've never shot 24p, I reeeally don't like 24p. Never have. I've been shooting 1080/30p and overall love it except for the one issue. I did some more testing this morning with 1080/60i and it's a little better, but still not crisp with slow movements.

From my eyes, in many circumstances, I feel I could get close enough to, oh, say the F900 to be very happy. The EX1 rocks in most cases. I've read many people say the EX1 intercuts well with the F900 (but I doubt they were motion shots). I'm sure it's not as good as the F900, but I can't backpack and kayak very easily with a F900 so the EX1 looks acceptably amazing. If the Sony was 1/2" CCD chips shooting at 100 mbps with NanoFlash, I'm sure it would get pretty close.

The three options you provided, 1 and 3 are not acceptable/doable. That's just the nature of things, I guess. #2 is my best hope DEPENDING on whether it's skew or codec responsible for 'most' of the motion sharpness reduction. If it's 50/50 responsible then I won't invest in the NanoFlash, the tradeoff for $$ is not there. I can probably buy a Scarlet for that much when it comes out. If it's 90/10, or 80/20 codec driven, then the NanoFlash will be an option because that's a substantial improvement, chip skew be damned.

We'll see when I get to test the NanoPuppy out. Case closed. I do sincerely appreciate everyone's comments.

Perrone, gracias! Just a quick few things and I'll call it a day until I get my hands on the NanoFlash:

From my eyes, in many circumstances, I feel I could get close enough to, oh, say the F900 to be very happy. The EX1 rocks in most cases. I've read many people say the EX1 intercuts well with the F900 (but I doubt they were motion shots). I'm sure it's not as good as the F900, but I can't backpack and kayak very easily with a F900 so the EX1 looks acceptably amazing. If the Sony was 1/2" CCD chips shooting at 100 mbps with NanoFlash, I'm sure it would get pretty close.



Hi Buck-
There is no doubt in my mind that the 100 Mbps Long-GOP 1920x1080 MPEG2 CODEC in XDR/nano is above the F900 HDCAM 3:1:1 1440x1080 CODEC. See the attached CODEC chart, created by Sony (we just overlaid the 100 Mbps rate)

Mike, I have no doubt either. BUT the F900 has CCD chips and the EX1 has CMOS. This makes "motion sharpness" the main issue. That's why I keep asking about "motion". No 'stills'. It's a non-issue to me for static shots, the EX1 is amazing. Just comparing "specs" without factoring rendition of motion isn't apples to apples. If the sharpness drop with motion on the EX1 is mostly because of the CMOS chip, it won't matter what kind of codec specs you pour down its neck. If I'm understanding this correctly.

You could have 1000 mbps I-Frame and if the primary cause of the motion sharpness issue is coming directly from CMOS skew upon "movement", then fancy specs bypassing (or increasing) codecs wouldn't be the issue. For other cameras, yes, but specifically for the EX1, not if the limitations are chip driven. That's my dilemma and I'll have to see the results in person. I'm looking forward to it. I *hope* most of this motion sharpness issue is due to 35mbps Long GOP and not the chip itself.

Sorry, go to the Full Motion Video Comparison thread to view the CODEC Comparison chart.

Hey Mike, where is the Full Motion Video Comparison thread? I just scanned the forum and didn't see it? Sorry.

Try this link instead: http://convergent-design.fileburst.com/CODEC Quality Chart.jpg

Buck,

as one of the lurkers and one who does not have an EX1 yet, but has been following this with great interest, please consider reporting back to this thread with your thoughts after you try the NanoFlash! Please.

Cheers, Ian

Thanks! Does this chart making any assumptions on CCD vs. CMOS? I don't see where it does? I could be mis-reading it. If it doesn't, then the "motion" aspect of CMOS isn't factored in. This spec chart might hold up to static shots from CCD and CMOS, and this chart might fall apart upon motion with CMOS. I don't know.

Ian, that is my goal! I'll be a great proponent of NanoFlash if it solves the issue!

Buck,

Ive been following your threads since you first bought your EX1 and understand exactly what you want out of it for those slow horizontal pans of nature scenes. As an EX1 owner I also understand your frustration at not being able to get crisp images of static objects as you pan. I had same problem with some detailed artwork I tried panning across last year. The fine pen drawn lines didnt keep their sharpness even when I panned slowly.

So along comes the Nano Flash to solve this problem but then along comes the fear of Rolling Shutter CMOS distortion potentially counteracting this expensive solution.

I wouldnt worry about the CMOS factor here. As you know the EX1 scans at a constant rate of 60 fields per second from top to bottom of screen. I'm sure for your slow pans this rolling shutter wont have any effect on the sharpness of image because you will probably be moving the camera at only a few degrees a second so any straight verticals such as trees for example should not even have a hint of "fringe blurring" that you might be fearing from CMOS unless those verticals were right up close in the shot in which case they would move across the screen at a faster rate. Even then I dont think it would be a problem.

I say "Fringe Blur" not "Vertical Skew" here because we would be talking about very minute loss of sharp edge rather than full skew from a whip pan.

I think the Nano Flash is just what you need. It should give you the sharpness you want unless your hobby is zooming right into black and white barcodes and panning horizontally.

Another cheaper option you might consider is this.......
Buy a telescope motorized mount for your tripod head and set your camera to interval recording at 1 frame a second and set the telescope head to rotate at 1degree a second. The results will give super sharp images on every frame when you play back. But if you dont want sped up movement of clouds and leaf movement from wind etc I can understand you not wanting to consider that option. I personally like the effect, it makes scenery seem like a minature diaroma somehow.

Anyway, Cant wait to see your results whatever you do.

Kubalsky

Take a look at the comparison images again. The 100Mbps side is virtually 100% artifact free. I think this is the definitive test for high-motion and Long-GOP recording. If the video looks great under these conditions, I am sure it will look spectacular under a very slow horizontal pan.



Agreed!
Some are speculating way to much that the EX rolling shutter skew is going to add to perceived motion blur. Your fast pan (1/2000 shutter) example observed frame-by-frame certainly looks sharp.

Thanks! Does this chart making any assumptions on CCD vs. CMOS? I don't see where it does? I could be mis-reading it. If it doesn't, then the "motion" aspect of CMOS isn't factored in. This spec chart might hold up to static shots from CCD and CMOS, and this chart might fall apart upon motion with CMOS. I don't know.

Hi Buck-
No assumption about CCD vs CMOS, the chart just considers the overall quality of the compressed video vs uncompressed (which is the HD-SDI video out).

Numerous tests from Jim Arthurs shows that the XDR/nano 100Mbps 4:2:2 CODEC holds up extremely well, even in CODEC busting rotational tests. Take a look at the following comparison images taking from an EX1 with a 1/2000 shutter speed (to eliminate the blur):

http://convergent-design.fileburst.com/35MbVRS100Mb_Rotate.zip

Mike...

I find it really interesting that compression artifacts in 4:2:0 appear on the macro level as macro-blocking and the micro level as general edge blurring.

The other thing that seems to plague 4:2:0 is intolerance to exposure corrections in post, in the form of macroblocks and grain, especially in the shadows and underexposed areas. Would you expect much improvement in this area with 4:2:2?

edit: In retrospect, the "chroma macroblocks" in shadow areas that are bumped up in post production, may be more related to 8-bit sampling limitations. So the right question would be, will the 10-bit sampling help these very delicate color gradients in the shadows that start to band when exposure levels are raised?

Alexander, thank you so much for that post... it's music to my eyes! It gives me stronger hope that the NanoFlash is my ticket.