Is that a problem with FX1000?

[Ben Hall]

The worst case is a dark room with very bright flashes - if it's one or two, it's not really going to matter, but if it's something like a press conference (as above) with lots of flash it does look pretty odd.

I did a birthday party and was about worried about the flashes going off, but they weren't that bright relative to the ambient so the end result isn't that noticeable unless you know what you are looking for.

If you have something really important, so you can always fix it in post but the less we have to do here, the better.

I would really like to see a firmware fix to do this automatically in camera - as has been announced by a different manufacturer of CMOS cameras...

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Luc De Wandel

Yesterday I showed this footage to an audience of 30 experienced videographers and very few of them had noticed the rolling shutter effect before I pointed it out myself. So for me it's not a big problem, and no, I'm doing no weddings at all, but I'm very often in the presence of many many flashing colleagues.

My point precisely. There are many videographers using CMOS for wedding work and if this issue were so severe and so very bothersome to the majority of users, I doubt you would see that many using CMOS equipment. When you can show it to a group of 30 experienced videographers and have very few of them even notice it, I just don't think it's a biggie. Too often understated, is the superb low-light response of CMOS-based cams like the Z5/FX1000. That's a huge 'flip-side' in my opinion!

Obviously for those that use these CMOS cams, see the issue, and find it DOES bother them, that's a different story. But I don't think that comprises the majority of those that use this equipment in a flash-filled environment. I've always felt that shooting in a flash-filled environment with ANY equipment (CCD or CMOS) is potentially distracting...they're just different 'types' of distracting.

But everyone sees it differently. It seems the majority of those videographers you showed your footage to, see it the way I do.

[Luc De Wandel]

Yes, and so do I. Photflashes are always a nuisance for videographers. Of course that doensn't mean that I wouldn't welcome a solution for the problem.

[Jeff Harper]

The most successful and experienced wedding videographer I know (based on income and years of experience) also churns out basic and boring wedding videos. He doesn't care about rolliing shutter either when I've showed him.

In fact he also claims his clients are completely happy with 4:3 footage and that they don't notice or care about 4:3 vs 16:9. He often shoots with a 4:3 cam in stretched 16:9 mode and says it looks great. I say it looks like crap.

His reasoning is that his clients don't complain. His clients don't notice these things he says, so why should he invest in new cameras?

This is a classic example that outlines why I don't understand it when people say "My customers don't complain about (fill in the blank) so everything must be fine."

It might be the economy, but my friend's business is down this year by about a third. The strange thing is my business is up and I've raised my prices, and am about to raise them again. What's even stranger to me is he actually doesn't believe those of us he who claim our business is up. He thinks we're lying. He's stuck in a mindset that is going to cost him money until he wakes up.

The CMOS thing is for the most part out of my control economically. I shoot with CMOS cameras, and while I hate the rolling shutter for my style of work, I am living with it. But I do not pretend it's OK. Its not. I won't minimize it and pretend.

Quality wedding video is all about aesthetics. That is why non-wedding videographers don't care about this, and creative wedding videographers do.

So yes, I am aware that you can find hundreds of people who will not notice the aesthetic differences between CMOS and CCDs, but there will always be those that do.

Since CMOS cams are what is being sold now, I feel somewhat safe in the sense that most other videographers with newer gear are suffering with the same issue, so I don't come out of it looking any worse than most everyone else in this respect.

[Martin Duffy]

Jeff,

Don't let that "It will be right" friend of yours get to you.

You will win out as you obviously take pride in the 1%'s.

Well done.

I also have a wedding friend who has a very similar attitude.

Best to be friends with these people but not discuss business.

[Jeff Harper]

Good point Martin. We don't argue. I find common ground and we stick with that. He still knows a lot more about video than I ever will.

[Ron Evans]

Jeff, most cameras consumers now buy will be CMOS and unfortunately for the traditional video business will be HD. Someone who has just bought a Sony XR500/520 and just uses AUTO will have a wonderful picture almost all of the time. I have used this little camera on auto with AE shift at -4 in the last three shows I have shot and it makes my FX1 video look a little sick!!!! The FX1 will be changed soon. Rolling shutter is not an issue for me but clean noise free video is as all my projects are theatre with high contrast and dark lighting. That little XR500 at 18db has less noise than the FX1 at 12db. I can leave it through the stage going to black and not worry about grain at all. Just amazing. Would love this technology in a more capable camera. This is the technology that the professionals will have to compete against. Most people see noise, color and contrast.
Seeing a poor 4x3 video from a professional video outfit will NOT cut it any more.
Ron Evans

[Ken Ross]

I'm sure we'd all love to have these CMOS cams without the RS. But the overlooked bright side is the amazing low light of the Sonys. Given a choice, I'd take the low light over a CCD with inferior low light.

The guy that Jeff described is a guy that simply doesn't care about quality, RS or not.

[Jeff Harper]

CMOS is touted for its low light abilities because the companies promote it to be so, but my Panasonic HMC 150 is close to the same. CCDs are not being developed in 1/2 or 1/3" sizes because they cost more than CMOS and are not as profitable.

I do not see the Sony's low light ability as "amazing" Ken, its not better than the VX2100 in the low light department. The Z5 and FX1000 are rated at a higher lux, and when promoting the camera prior to its release Sony even used trickery by saying the lux rating was possible (at 1/30 shutter). What kind of BS was that? They say if you can't baffle them with brilliance baffle them with bullsh_t.

Granted the CMOS sensors on the new small Sony's are much improved, but so what, its taken a couple of years for a 1/2 inch cmos to catch up with the low light abilities of the CCDs of the same size.

If I'm not mistaken the high-end broadcast $50K HD cameras are CCD still. The low end broadcast cams like the EX1 are CMOS.

CMOS is what the low end of the business gets and is a way for the companies to save money on manufacturing. To tout CMOS is like a woman bragging about her cheap dress bought at Target, saying it is as good as the dresses at Neiman Marcus. Technically they may seem the same, but she is only bragging about the Target dress because she doesn't know better.

It is similar to Mp3 vs CDs. Virtually every single kid today listens to mp3s happily.

If you ask them about the differences betweetn mp3 and CDs they will tell you that mp3s are BETTER! That is of course, bullshit.

I owned an entertainment company in the 80s and 90s, and remember how everyone thought that CDs sounded better than LPs when they came out. They did not, of course sound even close to the same, but that is the perception the companies promoted. The vast majority who play vinly now are old hippies, collectors, and audiophiles who know the difference. Hip Hop DJs know the difference even if the people don't.

People are largely embracing CMOS because it is all that is out there! It is what the companies are selling, and what they are promoting.

CMOS is not better. But it is cheaper, for sure. Until you shoot with a HD camera with 1/3" CCD chips, it might be best to hold of on proclaiming the superiority of CMOS. It won't be long before there will be virtually no CCD chips left at our level as they are not as profitable as CMOS sensors.

If you've watched a football game in Hi-Def, you've watched CCDs. That is the quality difference.

Just because CMOS is dominating doesn't mean it is better. It means only that is what the companies are pushing.

If you pay attention, when you reach 50-60 years of age you will have seen the whole cycle repeat itself so many times it that it will only take you only a minute to recognize the work of the multinationals when you see it. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Ken Ross]

I disagree with you Jeff on several points. First and most importantly, it's very often consumer advances that work their way UP to the pro level. Many pro cameras now have onboard (no seperate monitor) color monitoring abilities that consumer cams have had for some time. It wasn't that long ago that pro cameras would shun any onboard color LCDs in favor of higher resolution B&W monitoring.

Second, CMOS imagers do have some superior abilities relative to CCD. For a given size, they are capable of both better color and better low light sensitivity. You are mistaken if you think that CMOS is for 'cheapo' cams. Some of the most expensive digital still cameras are utilizing CMOS...and trust me, at their price range the manufacturer could have thrown in a CCD. CMOS simply has some undeniable quality advantages.

CMOS imagers are immune to overload. Yes, CCD has improved greatly in that area, but that artifact can still be visible when bright light points are in the scene.

I certainly stick to my assertion that the FX1000/Z5 are unparralled in their field for low light imaging. Jeff, you simply can't compare an HD camera's sensitivity with an SD camera's sensitivity. It is FAR harder to produce an imager that has great low light when it has so so many more pixels. The fact that the FX1000/Z5 can even be considered in the same ballpark as the VX2100 (which I own) is a phenomenal accomplishment. It is just not the ability to see detail in low light, but also to do it with great color AND exceedingly low noise levels. I've yet to see a prosumer HD cam that can do all that anywhere near that price range.

As for the quality difference you're seeing in broadcast Jeff, it's NOT the "CCD vs CMOS" argument, it's the SIZE argument. Broadcast cams are blessed with imagers that are 1/2" at the low end and larger at the high end. That and superb lenses & processing that we can only drool at are the reasons the image looks so good. It aint the CCD vs CMOS debate...trust me.

[Adam Gold]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

...when promoting the camera prior to its release Sony even used trickery by saying the lux rating was possible (at 1/30 shutter). What kind of BS was that? They say if you can't baffle them with brilliance baffle them with bullsh_t.

They're not the only ones. Canon touts the A1s as being able to shoot at 0.5 lux.... at 1/4 sec shutter speed.

Ya gotta read careful, I tell ya.

[Luc De Wandel]

Jeff, I'm just into video for fun, but I've been a professional rock photographer for the last 20 years, and I strongly disagree with you as far as your point of view on CMOS is concerned. In my business, where 'no flash' and high ISO are the trademarks, CMOS has done miracles for the image quality. Three years ago I sold for 25.000 euro's worth of Nikon camera's and lenses because Canon's CMOS cams were SO much better in low light. Barely a year after that, Nikon came out with the D3 - a CMOS cam- and I realised I could have kept all my stuff...

The difference between the shots made with my old CCD-based Nikon's and the CMOS-Canons, is clearly visible on my site: Concertpix' homepage

So your claim that CMOS is only in the market because the marketing guys promote it, is turning things around: CMOS is there because it is - for certain important aspects - WAY better than CCD, and of course the marketing guys would do a very bad job indeed if they wouldn't convey this USP to the public. I'm sure you know the saying 'you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not alle of the people all of the time'. Well, there is not one of my colleague photographers who still uses CCD. They just cannot be fooled.

And when I play my old long playing records and compare them to CD's, the noise-signal ratio of the records is so bad, that I'm ready to accept the small disadantages of the CD's anytime. Just the same for CMOS-CCD...

[Jeff Harper]

I opened up too many cans of worms, obviously, so I'll just comment for now on what you said Ken about improvement working their way up. That is often true, quite true. But the reverse is often true as well. For example technology that has been developed for the aerospace industry often works its way down into the consumer market.

CMOS sensors are simply an extension of the digital revolution, and there is no stopping it. I know that.

As far as what you say about CD vs vinyl, Luc, I love the convenience of CDs vs LPs also. Without the digital technology that allows us to utilize digital files we would be back to VCRs, and no one wants to go back to that, even me.

So while some of my assertions may or may not be correct, I am happy to question it all. Regarding CMOS for digital still cameras, yes they are amazing, but video and still cameras are not the same. Rolling shutter with video will never be considered a benefit but is a shortcoming that needs to be worked out. Eventually, regardless of my feelings about the matter, it will all be CMOS regardless.

[Ken Ross]

Ah, and before we forget, let's chalk up power-saving abilities of CMOS imagers vs. their CCD couterparts. Battery life time got a significant boost when we went to CMOS-based cams.

Yes, each has their pluses & minuses, but I think the group here has outlined the fact that CMOS has more going for it, in general, than CCD.

But Jeff, if you don't like CMOS, I'm sure you won't have to wait too long before the next radically new imager makes center-stage. Our wait for things like this is never too long. :)

[Jeff Harper]

"I think the group here has outlined the fact that CMOS has more going for it, in general, than CCD." Ken Ross

If you were to take the discussion to the Panasonic AVCHD forum you would get different a different reaction.

1. Long time Sony user and nationally known wedding cinematographer who has abandoned Sony for the HMC150 after using both the Z5 and the Panasonic side by side.

2. At least two others in that forum who have sold their Sony FX1000s for the Panasonic.

3. Many who have both cameras and prefer the look of the CCDs by far over the CMOS.

I have both and if it were not for the AVCHD mess I would sell the Sony's in a heartbeat. I have both, have used both, and seen the difference. Actually the differences in the images are much too insigificant to matter, to me but the losing of the rolling shutter alone would be wonderful.