A few questions from a potential V1U buyer down the line...

I understand that the CMOS chips are different than CCD chips, but does the V1U have the same basic DOF as the Z1U, or do the smaller 1/4" chips have an even deeper DOF?

Rolling shutter with progressive...how bad is it? I really don't like the idea of objects bending in sharp motion, as I like my films to occasionally have a bit of that "24" camera motion, and it would seem that bending movement would be frustrating to watch. (I read about this in Adam Wilt's review, I think.)

Thanks.

The DOF on the V1 "seems" similar to that of the Z1.

I don't think the rolling shutter is an issue at all until faster than 1/250 shutter. Even then, it's nothing like you see on a cell phone or other low-end CMOS device. The shutter on the V1 reads multiple pixels simultaneously and has a fast processor.

By "seems" to be similar to the Z1U do you mean that you have achieved pretty decent blurred background shots (I would think the 20x zoom would probably help even more with that).

Secondly, a new question, one I should have put in before -- when filming in 24p in HDV, how does the camera actually encode to tape? Is it actually encoded in a 60i HDV stream, or are there simply flags within the stream to identify which frames need duplication for a 60i signal -- in other words, can I capture an actual 24p file straight onto my Vegas 7.0 timeline, or will the compression further suffer by pulldown artifacts?

This is the biggest deciding factor between the V1U and the XH-A1 at the moment.

By "seems" to be similar to the Z1U do you mean that you have achieved pretty decent blurred background shots (I would think the 20x zoom would probably help even more with that).

Here's a snapshot from a casual shot through the window with my V1E; you can see there is a couple of "planes" I could easily get into focus while blurring the others:

The V1 records in a 60i timeline. I know it can be directly imported into Vegas, but I don't know the internal workings.

Thanks everyone for your honesty and opinions -- however, I just learned of the new XDCAM EX for under $8k that's coming out this fall. This will be the unit I will wait for.

This is a wonderful community, and I value it greatly!

Worthy of a new topic. It's a 1/2" chip camera about the size of a PD-170 maybe. Records to solid state media (not xdcam discs directly though).

Thanks everyone for your honesty and opinions -- however, I just learned of the new XDCAM EX for under $8k that's coming out this fall. This will be the unit I will wait for.

This is a wonderful community, and I value it greatly!

Worthy of a new topic. It's a 1/2" chip camera about the size of a PD-170 maybe. Records to solid state media (not xdcam discs directly though).

I agree entirely, the EX will be the indie cinematographer's dream camera, an affordable version of an XDCam. Be interesting to see whether this gets Discovery Channel's 100% acquisition approval like the 350. I would agree in holding off purchase of a V1U, unless it specifically fits your requirements, but the timeline for it could slip.

The EX looks very interesting. It may be 4x the camera at only twice the price. Of course, it is still twice the price. Don't forget that flash is also still very expensive.

It looks like the camera I've been saying someone should make - a small form camera with full-size chips. If Sony truly goes with a standardized memory format and doesn't try to start up another proprietary format, they will have a winner on their hands. Flash will eventually fall dramatically in price (if in a standard format) and a camera like this will be amazing and relatively affordable.

I still haven't found anything regarding the type of chips used. I'm guessing CCD as I haven't seen any Sony cameras with 1/2" CMOS.

I just ordered one today!....True! Their first real order!

I had a credit at a Melbourne agent as I won the door prize at the Sony road show last year, an A1, but I put it in credit as I was deciding which cameras to buy, (our business is mainly events - 2 camera - VX 2000's - concerts and weddings).

But the FX 7 I bought last year just does not cut it well enough for me for dark reception or concert work, so I'll hang off getting a second camera and we'll probably end up with two EX's ....they look like a major step up - if Sony deliver!

Cheers Vaughan

I personally am bothered by the cmos rolling shutter on the a1/hc1 cameras. I don't know if the readout speed is faster on the V1, but I read a lengthy complain in another forum about it. That's the only complaint I've read though, but that doesn't tell me much as people don't seem to complain about it in other cameras anyway. It's definitely a no-no for that "24" look you're looking. Especially in a city with a high shutter speed, it would be terrible.

The readout speed on the hc1 is about 1/60. I guess I'll have to track one v1 down and see if the readout speed would be enough.

I don't know if the readout speed is faster on the V1, but I read a lengthy complain in another forum about it. That's the only complaint I've read though, but that doesn't tell me much as people don't seem to complain about it in other cameras anyway. It's definitely a no-no for that "24" look you're looking. Especially in a city with a high shutter speed, it would be terrible.

Unless you shoot a spinning fan you'll never see it. There's none -- even shooting high-speed traffic. And, you should never use more than 1/120 under ANY condition when shooting video -- unless you want a Saving Private Ryan look -- which has already been used. Why would you want to copy it.

Unless you shoot a spinning fan you'll never see it. There's none -- even shooting high-speed traffic. And, you should never use more than 1/120 under ANY condition when shooting video -- unless you want a Saving Private Ryan look -- which has already been used. Why would you want to copy it.

Not quite.

Rolling shutter can be seen at any speed over 1/60 in a variety of situations, particularly that where the camera is moving fast over a horizonal line or near horizontal line. In some very rare instances, rolling shutter can be seen even at 1/60.
Image One shows the subject with nothing of substance in the background.
Image Two shows a semi-horizontal skyline, same subject, less than 3 seconds later. Rolling shutter is *very* apparent in the video, and visible in the still frame grab I just captured using PRT SC.
Additionally, high shutter speeds are of course, very common in many forms of video production, such as when slow motion is the end goal, to name but one of several reasons one would use high shutter speeds.

Image Two shows a semi-horizontal skyline, same subject, less than 3 seconds later. Rolling shutter is *very* apparent in the video, and visible in the still frame grab I just captured using PRT SC.

There's nothing seriously wrong with the area marked by yellow.

Moreover, no one in an audience is going to be looking at the upper corner of such dramatic footage. Eyes automatically focus on the falling person.

You are confusing what you see in post with what an audience sees. By your logic, filmmakers would not use any footage that had background strobbing. But, they do use such footage because they understand that while THEY see it, the audience will NOT because the camera person tracked the Subject.

Thus, the issue is not does a camera record an artifact, but is it relevant to story telling process. Which is why I said if you aim the camera at a fan you will see it. The fan has become the SUBJECT.

Keeping shutter-speed between 1/30th and 1/120th assures motion will be rendred naturally. Anything slower and not only is motion unnatural -- the increased blur cuts detail resolution. Anything faster than 1/120th and there is not enough motion blur to connect frames into a smooth series.

As a I said, you are free to break these rules if you are creating an FX like the SPR look. Slo-mo is another FX.

Not quite.

Rolling shutter can be seen at any speed over 1/60 in a variety of situations, particularly that where the camera is moving fast over a horizonal line or near horizontal line. In some very rare instances, rolling shutter can be seen even at 1/60.
Image One shows the subject with nothing of substance in the background.
Image Two shows a semi-horizontal skyline, same subject, less than 3 seconds later. Rolling shutter is *very* apparent in the video, and visible in the still frame grab I just captured using PRT SC.
Additionally, high shutter speeds are of course, very common in many forms of video production, such as when slow motion is the end goal, to name but one of several reasons one would use high shutter speeds.

Okay, rolling shutter is 'very apparent'. Well its not very apparent to me? What am I suppose to see?? The only thing I see is the horizon line is not straight (and that is out of the yellow band area that is marked). That could be the result of using a wide angle lens with some distortion. Is that the effect of the rolling shutter here? The horizon line is arced slightly, just like any wide angle lens over 24mm or less on a 35 SLR? I assume this was with just the normal lens - no wide adapter lens? If so, yes it is distorted, but I agree, its not bad enough, that in a moving video, you would say "oh my gosh look at the distortion from the rolling shutter. If I am not looking or 'seeing' the right things here - please explain what I should be looking for. No disrespect ment, and as always, on small snap shots downloaded over the internet - it is not always easy to see what was clearly obvious to the one looking at the original footage. Thanks - PK

Unless you shoot a spinning fan you'll never see it. There's none -- even shooting high-speed traffic.

I can see it in 1/25 shutter speed also, the motion blur masks it but it is definitely viewable. I'm not that interested in the bending of lines when doing pans and stuff, but the overall bulging that happens when doing fast speed action where the camera moves is horrible.

I tend to use 1/100 shutter alot because of the HC1's electronic image stabiliser. But it's still viewable in 1/50. And I DO INDEED make a lot of "saving private ryan-style, michael bay-waving the camera around" action shots so it is definitely an issue for me with the hc1. But I haven't seen the V1 so my criticism isn't towards it just generally against the rolling shutter phenomenon.

It also makes tracking shots and effects placement a bit...strange. Not to mention slowmo shots where its 2x more visible.

As someone who specifically ASKS about the '24' style camera movements he wants to make, I'd really like too see some 24 style V1 stuff. I can post HC1 rolling shutter videos that are very apparent when I get home from work.

I can perfectly understand that most people won't notice it. It's an issue only when doing action. Simple pans or just watching "high" speed traffic isn't it. It also makes handheld shots look pretty darn fugly as the bottom part of the image moves at a different time than the upper part. I had to cut a frame out of one my action clips because one of the camera shakes had caused a weird bulge in the picture.

But lets say the V1 has a higher speed than the hc1. I read somewhere that it has a 4x faster readout speed, so that would be enough even for me.

BTW, I've never aimed the camera towards a fan or looking spefically for problems. The first time I spotted the rolling shutter effect was when I was doing telephoto handheld shots in a city.

Since you can't see the dark band in that shot, which is readily apparent and was shocking to the Sony engineers (this wasn't shot with a V1, BTW) obviously it's not acceptable to them. Audiences *can* clearly see it.
I find it ironic I'm with Mikko on this one, because we've had rolling shutter debates before. Nice to be on the same side of the fence here, Mikko. :-)

I believe the original quote is And, you should never use more than 1/120 under ANY condition when shooting video -- unless you want a Saving Private Ryan look -- which has already been used.

I believe the statement disqualifies slow mo in post.
Additionally, just because *you* can't see it doesn't mean it's there. Professional editors and shooters know what they're looking at the moment they experience it. It looks like a faint scan line,not horribly different from CRT scan lines shot at 1/60th by a camcorder without clear-scan features. I see the darkened ripple in the posted shot plain as day, look at the frame roughly 40 frames earlier. Clean and clear. Shot two has a nasty horizontal line that runs from top to bottom for all of 10 seconds.

I think the reason I don't see rolling shutter as a problem with the V1 is that it is not a bottleneck. The systems on the V1 seem to mesh well together an nothing sticks out as a significant problem. To get any sort of noticeable rolling shutter effects, you would probably be doing some action that would also start to induce compression artifacts. Neither of these problems come in so soon that it is going to ruin footage except in freakishly demanding circumstances. If you need an F950, buy or rent an F950. The V1 is like a Japanese sports car. It may not be as flashy as a Ferrari or as fast as a McLaren, but it goes fast and is perfect as an everyday driver. It also does all you need without breaking the budget. People seem to be looking for a sort of flaw that breaks the deal with the V1. That flaw is just not there. There may be another camera that you like better, but the V1 isn't handicapped by anything but the fact that it isn't a $25,000 camera.

Besides the V1 being a fine camera, it's not really the camera that does the job anyway. I've seen great images from all of the HDV cameras so none of them are really a limiting factor. I feel the need for the manual controls on the mid-size cameras like the FX1, V1, and Canon A1, but they all can make a nice picture. If you don't believe me that the camera is no longer a limitation, go to the "Show Your Work" section of this forum. Take a look at "Living the Dream" by Charles Papert and you will have to agree that, for most scenes, few people could tell the difference between this and big-budget shots.

Not quite.

Rolling shutter can be seen at any speed over 1/60 in a variety of situations, particularly that where the camera is moving fast over a horizonal line or near horizontal line. In some very rare instances, rolling shutter can be seen even at 1/60.
Image One shows the subject with nothing of substance in the background.
Image Two shows a semi-horizontal skyline, same subject, less than 3 seconds later. Rolling shutter is *very* apparent in the video, and visible in the still frame grab I just captured using PRT SC.
Additionally, high shutter speeds are of course, very common in many forms of video production, such as when slow motion is the end goal, to name but one of several reasons one would use high shutter speeds.

Douglas, NOBODY I showed those pics to, could see anything seriously wrong with them that made them un-usable.

Either we're really sloppy and unprofessional, or maybe you're too picky...

Since you can't see the dark band in that shot, which is readily apparent and was shocking to the Sony engineers (this wasn't shot with a V1, BTW) obviously it's not acceptable to them. Audiences *can* clearly see it.


I see some dark diagonal (more or less) banding that to me look like depressions in the earth and shadows. Whether or not those are the bands to which you refer, my impression is further solidified by examing a road through the area, where it appears that the road goes down and up, which corresponds to one of the shadowy areas.

Is that the banding? I magnified the picture a lot, and I don't see any straight side-to-side banding like a bad CRT. The picture's just a little fuzzy, and frankly, makes me wonder how I ended up jockeying software instead of riding in aircraft....

Thanks,
Matt

http://hmcindie.pp.fi/rollingshutter/

There's a small clip where the rolling effect can be seen pretty well in a city environment with some '24'-type of shooting. Shot with the hc1. It makes the type of shooting I like to do almost unusable. I have to be very careful about stuff moving in front of the lens and about keeping the shutter low.

http://hmcindie.pp.fi/rollingshutter/

There's a small clip where the rolling effect can be seen pretty well in a city environment with some '24'-type of shooting.

Sorry Mikko, but that video looks like it was shot as you tripped and fell while shooting. It looks nothing at all like "24."

Also remember that the HC1 is not the V1.

Actually, Mikko's stream is very "24"-like, but the shutter speed is also very fast, which as we all know, is not suited for CMOS cams on a budget.
A more reasonable example, IMO, is this one, (http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/media/sit_flutter.mov) where you can clearly see the rolling lines in the vid once horizontal elements come into the frame. Maybe the video presentation will help vs the still images, as it's very, very clear to trained or untrained eye. This is vertical motion with very little horizontal motion, add fast horizontal motion to fast shutter speed, it can be a problem. IMO, Mikko's piece is exaggerated, I'd consider mine exaggerated too, unless you're in the habit of falling out of aircraft. But...the relative motion is still relative motion, and you *can* see the rolling artifact regardless.

Has it been confirmed that the V1 uses the same shutter system as the A1/HC CMOS cameras? Sony's sales sheet seemed to imply otherwise, but I'm not sure how much stock should be taken in a sales document. I haven't noticed anything remotely like this with the V1, but I don't shoot like this at all. How high was the shutter speed?

I haven't noticed anything remotely like this with the V1, but I don't shoot like this at all. How high was the shutter speed?

The V1 does not behave like the HC1 or A1. So bringing the HC1 into this thread offers nothing.

24 isn't shot like that either. Every shot is VERY controlled by pros who know how to shoot quick moves at 24fps and have it look great. (Moreover, the HC1 doesn't shoot 24p if that was the frame-rate it was shot at.)

And, if someone likes to fall out of planes -- and they had any understanding of how the V1 works -- they would have used a different camcorder.

And, if someone likes to fall out of planes -- and they had any understanding of how the V1 works -- they would have used a different camcorder.

.

Yep, that's why the V1 was used to shoot commercial pieces for the Superbowl, Everready commercial, Remax commercials, and many other commercial spots, because I (and others like me) don't understand how the V1U works? <Tongue out of cheek now...)

Given that one of these pieces is produced by working professionals that shoot for an income, and used by many aerial professionals, I'd submit that we do know quite well how they work. Neither video piece is "stupid" but one indeed is taken out of context by Mikko for purposes of demonstration, I suspect. If one is shooting the interior of the local coffee house, shooting from straight sticks, or shooting pictures of kitty-cats, then of course one will never see these sorts of challenges exposed by *all* CMOS camcorders in the low-cost range whether we're talking about the HC1, V1, or anyone else' CMOS camcorder.
The key is keeping shutter speed low, or not using high camcorder motion at high shutter speeds.
Steve, I'd *love* to see you shoot better video. Especially in a skydive. I'll be in Boulder City soon doing an aerial video clinic, I'd like to personally invite you to come fly with me.

Steve, I'd *love* to see you shoot better video.

1) No where did I say the V1 wasn't for "pros". Quite the opposite. Yet on you go, way OT, seemingly unware that your words have nothing to do with any post on this Thread.

2) And, no where did I say you shot bad video.

3) I said you chose the wrong camera for shooting sky diving. And, my comment was based upon YOUR post bitching about YOUR problems with rolling-shutter. You even posted an example. In fact, this post of yours was also OT because sky diving is not exactly a "typical" camcorder application.

PS: Flying a plane, glider, and ultralight I'm cool with and have done over the years. Jumping out of a plane unless there's a good reason -- what for? However, as a psychologist I understand the childhood origins of compulsive thrill seeking behavior when combined with the need to film it all so it can be shown to -- them.

My apologies, Steve...I didn't explain myself clearly.
As an aerial videographer, I've chosen to fly with the V1 and A1 camcorders most of the time. I do have an HC5 and an HC7, plus an older HC3 for those "fun" moments vs working moments.
My video work isn't for other skydivers, it's for sports channels, commercial work, and basically the same sort of thing I do on the ground.

Norman Kent, arguably the #1 aerial videographer in the world, saw the V1 I was jumping back in September (the same preproduction camcorder you have in your possession) and was so impressed, he too, purchased the V1. So did Tom Sanders, Joe Jennings, and Matt Wimmer. All are hugely renowned videographers in the air. True, when Norman is shooting for "Charlie's Angels" he's shooting an Arri235, but when he's shooting for a Remax real estate spot, he's shooting the HVRV1U.
In other words, I don't think we chose badly. The V1 has been used for several aerial commercials, Superbowl ad work, and is currently in use for a feature or two, all using aerial videographers/cinematographers.
The point of my post is that:
a-Rolling shutter indeed exists at various shutter speeds and may be induced on demand.
b-It can be seen in *some* circumstances at slower shutter speeds.
c-Rolling shutter can be avoided, if one knows how/where/when.

Your initial post said "we have badly shot video, and poor choices in cameras." You didn't specify as to whose video was badly shot, and given that you indicated that both video clips are bad, and I shot one of them, I apparently mistook your reply to mean that my video is badly shot.

Very happy to throw you out of an airplane, with me right behind. We'll share it with the community, rather than shooting video just for skydivers. I guess I have a child like compulsion to enjoy and document lifestyles rather than just watching. As to the why? If you've never done it, you couldn't possibly understand.

If I could get a freebie camera (I'm not a journalist, I'm a shooter/editor) I'd probably jump a more expensive camera, but always have to be prepared to lose one, which is why we've now purchased six of them. If I could manage my XDCAM HD on my head vs the expensive Gyron belly mount, I'd probably jump that, too.

Back to point and rolling shutter...the very camera that you have (that I set up), was used to shoot the first-ever broadcast footage from an HVR V1U in the world. CNN, ESPN, ESPN2, Discovery all broadcast the footage from that camcorder. It went world-wide on two networks.
It was one of the first 3 chip aerial HD pieces ever shot, and other than HDCAM, the only progressive 1080 video ever shot, to my knowledge.
The producers felt that the V1 was a good camera choice. So did the subject, and the videographer.

Wow, aerial videography with the V1! Thats impressive. Being an aviation technician and possibly a future skydiver still in school its incredible to see the application of the V1 in such an extreme condition and utilized by such major networks. My intention of reading this thread was to gain more insight into the the V1 as I'm torn between the V1 and the A1. I'm in the business to shoot a lot of outdoor fast motion shoots like surfing, aviation, cars, and sports. I love the true 24P and 30P options as well as the uncompressed HD output capabilities if I have read correctly. The whole rolling shutter thing and low light capabilities have made me double think about the V1. Can you add anything as of advice or information that you feel is the best choice since you own the V1? I appreciate your time.

Gorski

I also own an A1, (http://www.vasst.com/product.aspx?id=af5b083b-3102-4624-aafa-9d5315f4ee3d) FWIW. I choose to fly with the V1 for several reasons, lightweight and balance being the chief reasons, but also because as discussed in various threads, it's a tad faster to find the sweet spot in setting up the cam, and it's rarely the same setup from morning to afternoon in our environment (shooting lake or mountains in background, differing sun positions, clouds)
24p is GREAT for certain types of flying, but generally shot at 60i so it can be slowed easily by 15-20%. Long battery life is a major plus, LANC is necessary for flying, IMO.
The rolling shutter you see in the shot is set up almost deliberately to see if I could induce it, based on posts in another forum, claiming it's there at all times. Of course it's not.
The two salient points of this particular discussion are that any CMOS camcorder (perhaps even the higher dollar cams) can be induced to show rolls. Second, is that you can avoid them if you consider the issue even peripherally in your workflow. The issue seems bigger than it is due to one person advocating that it's a huge problem and another advocating that it's not any kind of a consideration at all. IMO, neither is correct, and I'd say it's safe to suggest that I shoot roughly 60% of my work with a V1, easily 50% in the air with a V1. The Performance Designs Factory Team (multiple world record holders, and best canopy pilots in the world) are thrilled with the V1 and A1's they have, and as mentioned, Norman Kent is tickled to death with his, even carrying it virtually everywhere he goes. His non-video related interview at the Parachute Industry Association tradeshow shows him walking the show floor with a well-used V1 in his hands. Almost cute, if you know Norman at all. Had a brief discussion tonight with him, and while he's not at liberty to publically talk about a major motion picture he just shot pieces for, he used the V1. This will end up as part of a film transfer, theatrical release.

The V1 does not behave like the HC1 or A1. So bringing the HC1 into this thread offers nothing.

24 isn't shot like that either. Every shot is VERY controlled by pros who know how to shoot quick moves at 24fps and have it look great. (Moreover, the HC1 doesn't shoot 24p if that was the frame-rate it was shot at.)


I brought the hc1 to the mix because I heard complaint in a different forum about the V1's rolling shutter effect by someone. Bringing the hc1 to the mix will give me a clear idea of is the v1 the same or different depending on what people say. That clip also clearly shows the effect at its maximum. I didn't specifically look for it when I was shooting, but when I went through the material I saw a lot of...interesting motions :)

I shot with the dvx100 and hc1 at the same time the other day and the dvx100 did indeed look somewhat "more right" in motion shots even with a 1/50 shutter.

The problem also appears when doing telephoto shots and something passes along the frame. Like shooting from a moving car into the horizon. When something passes in front it will look like shit and there's nothing to do about it. Also the effect will be more apparent in a 25p clip than a interlaced 50i clip because one frame is longer in view.

I used a pal hc1 so a 25p clip was very easy to get. And I don't really see the point in belittling this. The effect maybe nothing to you, but I'm interested in seeing clips like this for the v1. I read a brochure once where Sony said the readout speed was 4x for the V1, but I don't know how it translates to real life. The hc1 (and hc3/hc5/hv10 atleast) seems to have the same 1/60 speed for the rolling shutter to go from the upper part of the frame to the lower. One of the reasons these cameras use a 1920x1440 sensor is to minimize the apparentness of the rolling shutter by cropping the lower and upper part of the frame. The v1 doesn't do this so I'd assume it is indeed faster.

The issue seems bigger than it is due to one person advocating that it's a huge problem and another advocating that it's not any kind of a consideration at all. IMO, neither is correct.

That's true. Reading all of the posts I'd say I'm in the minority here because of my shooting style (high shutter, lots of kungfu, slowmotions, tracking shots).

I was really confused by HC1 footage being used in a V1 rolling shutter discussion. I've never seen anything like that at all with the V1, but I'm not doing that sort of stuff so I thought I might have missed something.

In looking at Spot's footage, I can now see the rolling shutter artifact that looks like strobing. I examined the footage and it looks like a VERY fast shutter. Even with dramatic movement, there is no motion blur. I believe I've stated in the past that I think the V1 is probably just fine up to 1/250 and don't have a reason to ever go faster. I am curious as to the shutter speed used in the sit_flutter.mov clip. I don't think I will ever shoot with such dramatic movement and a really fast shutter, but it would be nice to know the limit where artifacts start to happen.

I think I just had a "Eureka" moment. I noticed in sit_flutter.mov that a lot of the shutter-induced strobing artifact was in a section of footage with less motion than a section with significant camera movement. When the camera flips over, there is just a bit of this artifact and that is when I would expect the greatest problem.

Why would there be more artifact when the camera operator is flying level?

I think I know a possible answer: Steadyshot.

During gross movement of the camera, the image stabilization will be pegged at maximum/overwhelmed so it won't be moving during the exposure. On the other hand, small but fast vibrations may be causing the optical stabilizer to move during the actual exposure. I would guess that maybe buffeting airflow could be inducing the problem.

I wasn't there, but I'd like to know if Steadyshot was turned on. Since there are frames with incredibly fast motion without obvious artifacts, I bet only the super-fast reactions of the stabilizer are able to cause this problem.

If this is the case, problem solved. Stabilization can done in post, so people doing extreme shots with a fast shutter can plan for this and practically eliminate the artifacts.

I get big nerd cred if I'm right and someone then owes me a Kuaaina burger!

I get big nerd cred if I'm right and someone then owes me a Kuaaina burger!

You're right. The hc1 has somewhat the same effect when the stabiliser corrects movement. It doesn't stop the rolling shutter though, so the stabilised footage will be "stable" but it will wobble. And you can't eliminate it in post. The wobbling will stay. The alternating brightness will go away though.

I just watched the clip and there is some small wobbling when going frame by frame, there aren't that many straight lines though to evaluate. I'm actually thinking that maybe the V1 isn't faster at all, but nobody else notices or cares about the phenomenon except me :)

Oh well, enjoy your cameras, I can live with the rolling shutter although it sometimes forces me to limit my shutter and movements.

Let me ask for some clarification here...

In the sit_flutter clip, I see two different types of artifact. I see the horizontal dark strobing bands in the last part of the clip. I also see the horizon "bend" as the camera pans. It looks a bit like the distortion you would get with a fisheye lens.

I was under the impression that it's the latter artifact that is caused by the rolling shutter. Am I wrong?

Doug, the extreme wide angle is just that, an extreme wide angle on the lens. It's only the strobing that you should be concerned with, we generally use extreme wides in most aerial work when shooting for fun vs commercial use.

Thanks, Spot.

At the risk of going OT, why do you use a WA on a jump cam? Is it because a lot of your shots are done while physically very close to the subject? Holding hands, other relative work?

I'm still very interested in knowing the shutter speed used in the aerial footage and whether or not image stabilization was engaged. Turning off image stabilization to reduce strobing could be an important step for V1 users that use high shutter speeds.

In the clips provided, the "wobbling" on the V1 looks dramatically lesser than that on the HC1. I really didn't notice it on the V1 footage until I focused on finding it. The HC1, on the other hand, showed obvious and extreme diagonal distortion.

Footage is at 1/120th, but frankly, I could have avoided the issue had I managed the angle better. I usually do. It's a combination of things, and this clip is rare.
However, I do shoot often at 1/120, because I'm often slowing my footage down, and need the additional speed to get a good slo-mo image.

Wides are used for multiple reasons, but the most important is that we're interested (usually) in showing the breadth of the sky while pulling the subject to the fore. After all, it *is* the biggest playground in the universe for the child-like fun we have up there. :-)

How about image stabilization?

For anyone who thinks a rolling shutter is a non issue a quick trip over to the Reduser forum might convince you otherwise. Just because the eye doesn't see things doesn't mean it isn't an issue for compositing.
As for using faster shutter speeds, there's many good reasons, slomo is one, image stabilisation in post is another.