Is that a problem with FX1000?

Jeff Harper · June 10th, 2009, 07:47 AM

60, I always run 60.

Ron mentioned wishing for 60p, which I suspect could be a standard in the future.

The HMC150 does shoot in 60p, and it is pretty darn smooth.

Ron Wilber · June 10th, 2009, 11:08 AM

there's something unnatural to me about 60fps. I think it's too smooth, actually smoother than real life to my eyes.. maybe it's the way it handles motion blur or something like that. I wonder what the science is behind this, because really neither frame rates are what I would consider true to the human eye's peception of movement.

Oh yeah, 60fps explains your bad lowlight.. check out 30fps or 24fps, you'll get back at least a couple stops.

Jeff Harper · June 10th, 2009, 12:01 PM

Ron, do you mean 60p or 1/60?

If I remember correctly what I have read in some technical articles everything will be progressive at some time in the future (that may while, of course).

Ron Evans · June 10th, 2009, 01:20 PM

Yes I mean 60p progressive. It should have the temporal motion of 60i but with full frames rather than fields so conversions and display will be better for flat panel displays that are able to show 60P as are most of the modern flat panels. The sports networks already transmit 60p but this is 1280x720P60( the HMC150 will shoot at this rate) so is not what is now called Full HD at 1920x1080. 60p at that resolution is not in any of the current standards although most displays will show this full rate over HDMI. I think the only cameras that shoot at this rate now are Sanyo VPC-FH1 and the VPC-HD2000.

Ron Evans

Ken Ross · June 11th, 2009, 06:54 PM

I had to laugh yesterday since we've discussed this endlessly. I was watching "Extra" or something like that on CBS and there was a video of someone while he was being snapped by a bunch of photographers.

Well guys, there it was in all its glory, unmistakable rolling shutter!!!! So, apparently CBS IS using cams with CMOS imagers.

Jeff Harper · June 11th, 2009, 08:22 PM

I would suspect the footage was shot by a freelancer, not by a network employee.

Ken Ross · June 12th, 2009, 10:47 AM

It's possible Jeff, but it apparently didn't bother CBS enough to not air it. Most networks can be very particular about the quality of footage aired. Discovery HD won't take more than a small percentage of HDV footage per hour of footage submitted. Of course if it's something like a disaster, murder or something like that, the networks will take almost any footage.

But this was not much of an 'event' and they could have been fussy if they had so chosen.

Ron Wilber · June 12th, 2009, 12:08 PM

you mean networks won't take cmos footage? I thought the ex1/3 are used a lot in tv shows.

Ken Ross · June 12th, 2009, 01:03 PM

Ron, that's my point, apparently the networks are quite willing to accept CMOS footage.

Ron Wilber · June 12th, 2009, 03:41 PM

yeah i agree. they're quite willing to accept it becuase my guess is there really isn't an issue with it.

Ken Ross · June 12th, 2009, 05:16 PM

From my vantage point I don't see a big issue. Yes, I don't encounter flashes with the work I do, but even if I did, it wouldn't prevent me from using CMOS-based cams.

Jeff Harper · June 13th, 2009, 06:38 AM

The networks accept footage and photos from many types of camcorders and still cameras. They take what they can get. Whatever freelancers are using to get footage of stars and events for show like "Inside Edition" is what you will see.

They are looking for content, not footage shot on one camera type or another.

To interpret anything you see on these shows as an endorsement of one kind of camera over another doesn't make sense. I've seen really bad footage on those shows shot on what appeared to be a home camcorder. It doesn't mean anything, but if you guys say it does I certainly won't argue.

Tom Hardwick · June 13th, 2009, 08:00 AM

I too am at this crossroads.
My Z1 won't last forever and I delighted at the announcement of the Z5 and Z7. I was right on the verge of choosing between the two, and the Z7 seemed to hold the ace card because of it's much better low light capabilities as soon as you zoom to telephoto.

But but but. I've shot two weddings on an EX1 now and two things really bother me. First off is its feeble wide-angle coverage (and even more feeble, heavy, bulky 0.8x wide converter) and the CMOS rolling shutter. The latter is just ghastly under electronic flash, and although acceptable to many a client, certainly wouldn't be in slo-mo.

Of course the EX1 can shoot proper (mute) slo-mo, but I always need the sound (confetti, twirls, cake-cutting and so on), and my events happen in real time.

So the EX1 is out I'm afraid (and anyway, my clients don't pay for anything better than the Z1's most excellent footage - and I'd need two of them).

The Z7 doesn't work well with my Bolex super-wide, and although you can buy Sony's wide-angle zoom, it's not dramatically, frighteningly wide, it's just usefully wide. Yawn.

The Z5 is the biz except for one thing - and that's those CMOS chips. Sorry Sony, you've lost a long-time customer here.

I'll not go to smaller chips than 1"/3. The world is moving to ever larger chips for their low light capabilities and dof control, and I too am a believer. The PDX10 was a complete no-no with minuscule 1"/5 chips. So however clever and well reviewed the JVC 100 is, it's still sports a feeble zoom with an appalling wide-angle, feeding tiny chips. CCDs though, so thumbs up there.

Panasonic are really showing the way forward with their 4/3 (four thirds) format, and I'll wait awhile. Meanwhile the 151 appeals except for the fact that it's now become too expensive for it's own good. The build quality is nothing like a Z5 and the side-screen is silly, but the CCDs appeal. It needs two card slots, slow shutter speeds and more telephoto reach for my work, and when you can see the spec for the 151A you know it's best to hold on. The DVX100 was quickly replaced by the DVX100A for the same reasons.

I'm not so bothered by SDHC gathering, as you can downconvert in camera if needs be. Archiving is a different matter though, and dead easy with the Z1, 5 & 7. The Canon XH-A1s is still a very good camera indeed, although it will be Canon's last MiniDV cam.

tom.

Ken Ross · June 13th, 2009, 10:34 AM

Jeff, I agree that for 'must have' footage, the networks will and do accept most anything. But, as Ron pointed out, CMOS-based cams are indeed used in shows where they have a choice.

We obviously disagree on the severity of the issue, but that's fine. As I said, I would still get the Z5 again even if I did weddings, but only because I don't see the issue as you do.

It's great that we have a wide choice of cams for different needs and tastes. :)

June 10th, 2009, 07:47 AM	#136
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	60, I always run 60. Ron mentioned wishing for 60p, which I suspect could be a standard in the future. The HMC150 does shoot in 60p, and it is pretty darn smooth. Last edited by Jeff Harper; June 10th, 2009 at 08:32 AM.

June 10th, 2009, 11:08 AM	#137
Ron Wilber Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 98	there's something unnatural to me about 60fps. I think it's too smooth, actually smoother than real life to my eyes.. maybe it's the way it handles motion blur or something like that. I wonder what the science is behind this, because really neither frame rates are what I would consider true to the human eye's peception of movement. Oh yeah, 60fps explains your bad lowlight.. check out 30fps or 24fps, you'll get back at least a couple stops.

June 10th, 2009, 12:01 PM	#138
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Ron, do you mean 60p or 1/60? If I remember correctly what I have read in some technical articles everything will be progressive at some time in the future (that may while, of course).

June 10th, 2009, 01:20 PM	#139
Ron Evans Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 4,220	Yes I mean 60p progressive. It should have the temporal motion of 60i but with full frames rather than fields so conversions and display will be better for flat panel displays that are able to show 60P as are most of the modern flat panels. The sports networks already transmit 60p but this is 1280x720P60( the HMC150 will shoot at this rate) so is not what is now called Full HD at 1920x1080. 60p at that resolution is not in any of the current standards although most displays will show this full rate over HDMI. I think the only cameras that shoot at this rate now are Sanyo VPC-FH1 and the VPC-HD2000. Ron Evans

June 11th, 2009, 06:54 PM	#140
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	I had to laugh yesterday since we've discussed this endlessly. I was watching "Extra" or something like that on CBS and there was a video of someone while he was being snapped by a bunch of photographers. Well guys, there it was in all its glory, unmistakable rolling shutter!!!! So, apparently CBS IS using cams with CMOS imagers.

June 11th, 2009, 08:22 PM	#141
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I would suspect the footage was shot by a freelancer, not by a network employee.

June 12th, 2009, 10:47 AM	#142
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	It's possible Jeff, but it apparently didn't bother CBS enough to not air it. Most networks can be very particular about the quality of footage aired. Discovery HD won't take more than a small percentage of HDV footage per hour of footage submitted. Of course if it's something like a disaster, murder or something like that, the networks will take almost any footage. But this was not much of an 'event' and they could have been fussy if they had so chosen.

June 12th, 2009, 12:08 PM	#143
Ron Wilber Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 98	you mean networks won't take cmos footage? I thought the ex1/3 are used a lot in tv shows.

June 12th, 2009, 01:03 PM	#144
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Ron, that's my point, apparently the networks are quite willing to accept CMOS footage.

June 12th, 2009, 03:41 PM	#145
Ron Wilber Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 98	yeah i agree. they're quite willing to accept it becuase my guess is there really isn't an issue with it.

June 12th, 2009, 05:16 PM	#146
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	From my vantage point I don't see a big issue. Yes, I don't encounter flashes with the work I do, but even if I did, it wouldn't prevent me from using CMOS-based cams.

June 13th, 2009, 06:38 AM	#147
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	The networks accept footage and photos from many types of camcorders and still cameras. They take what they can get. Whatever freelancers are using to get footage of stars and events for show like "Inside Edition" is what you will see. They are looking for content, not footage shot on one camera type or another. To interpret anything you see on these shows as an endorsement of one kind of camera over another doesn't make sense. I've seen really bad footage on those shows shot on what appeared to be a home camcorder. It doesn't mean anything, but if you guys say it does I certainly won't argue.

June 13th, 2009, 08:00 AM	#148
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I too am at this crossroads. My Z1 won't last forever and I delighted at the announcement of the Z5 and Z7. I was right on the verge of choosing between the two, and the Z7 seemed to hold the ace card because of it's much better low light capabilities as soon as you zoom to telephoto. But but but. I've shot two weddings on an EX1 now and two things really bother me. First off is its feeble wide-angle coverage (and even more feeble, heavy, bulky 0.8x wide converter) and the CMOS rolling shutter. The latter is just ghastly under electronic flash, and although acceptable to many a client, certainly wouldn't be in slo-mo. Of course the EX1 can shoot proper (mute) slo-mo, but I always need the sound (confetti, twirls, cake-cutting and so on), and my events happen in real time. So the EX1 is out I'm afraid (and anyway, my clients don't pay for anything better than the Z1's most excellent footage - and I'd need two of them). The Z7 doesn't work well with my Bolex super-wide, and although you can buy Sony's wide-angle zoom, it's not dramatically, frighteningly wide, it's just usefully wide. Yawn. The Z5 is the biz except for one thing - and that's those CMOS chips. Sorry Sony, you've lost a long-time customer here. I'll not go to smaller chips than 1"/3. The world is moving to ever larger chips for their low light capabilities and dof control, and I too am a believer. The PDX10 was a complete no-no with minuscule 1"/5 chips. So however clever and well reviewed the JVC 100 is, it's still sports a feeble zoom with an appalling wide-angle, feeding tiny chips. CCDs though, so thumbs up there. Panasonic are really showing the way forward with their 4/3 (four thirds) format, and I'll wait awhile. Meanwhile the 151 appeals except for the fact that it's now become too expensive for it's own good. The build quality is nothing like a Z5 and the side-screen is silly, but the CCDs appeal. It needs two card slots, slow shutter speeds and more telephoto reach for my work, and when you can see the spec for the 151A you know it's best to hold on. The DVX100 was quickly replaced by the DVX100A for the same reasons. I'm not so bothered by SDHC gathering, as you can downconvert in camera if needs be. Archiving is a different matter though, and dead easy with the Z1, 5 & 7. The Canon XH-A1s is still a very good camera indeed, although it will be Canon's last MiniDV cam. tom.

June 13th, 2009, 10:34 AM	#149
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Jeff, I agree that for 'must have' footage, the networks will and do accept most anything. But, as Ron pointed out, CMOS-based cams are indeed used in shows where they have a choice. We obviously disagree on the severity of the issue, but that's fine. As I said, I would still get the Z5 again even if I did weddings, but only because I don't see the issue as you do. It's great that we have a wide choice of cams for different needs and tastes. :)