Is that a problem with FX1000? at DVinfo.net

Ruturaj Mistry · May 25th, 2009, 12:12 AM

hi all,

recently i read an article about cmos vs ccd sensors? it said that cmos sensor use rolling shutter. further this article stated that:

Rolling Shutter, however, can be tricky in a variety of applications. For example, shooting under slow-flickering lights, such as old fluorescents, can be difficult. The effect will appear as a dark bar rolling through your footage. As the CMOS sensors gathers light pixel-by-pixel, there are changes in illumination because the light is flickering on and off.

During Panning:

A CMOS sensor will appear to stretch or "skew" the image in either horizontal direction, making straight lines appear to bend in a diagonal fashion.

i want to know is that the case with Fx 1000, since it is also a cmos based Camera?

kindly enlighten,

regards,

Ruturaj Mistry

Luc De Wandel · May 25th, 2009, 02:26 AM

It is also true for the FX1000, as it has CMOS-sensors. But the effect is not that noticeable, you have to pan very quickly to get the skewing effect, and the flickering under fluorescent lights can be solved by choosing the appropriate shutter value. Moreover if you're filming under an intermittent light source, any camera will have a problem with bands rolling over the picture, depending on the shutter speed.

CMOS does have it's disadvantages, but unless you're going to be a paparazzo, with photoflashes going off when- and wherever you are shooting, I wouldn't worry about it.

Zach Love · May 25th, 2009, 02:47 AM

All things being equal, CCDs are better than CMOS. But things aren't equal, & CMOS makes it possible to have chips w/ higher resolution, greater sensitivity (able to operate in low light better), less noise at a lower price than comparable CCDs.

I think it is a fair trade off. These issues should be something you are aware of, but not something that pushes you away from a CMOS camera.

Jeff Harper · May 25th, 2009, 06:22 AM

I own 2 FX1000s. I also own a Panasonic HMC150 which has CCDs.

I've been looking at the footage from a wedding we shot with the Panasonic, and I much prefer the way flashes look from the Panasonic over the FX1000. There is a significant difference, IMO.

Zach Love · May 25th, 2009, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I own 2 FX1000s. I also own a Panasonic HMC150 which has CCDs.

I've been looking at the footage from a wedding we shot with the Panasonic, and I much prefer the way flashes look from the Panasonic over the FX1000. There is a significant difference, IMO.

Have you asked what a "normal" person thinks? See if they even notice the difference?

I like the look of a CCD better for flashes & fast motion too, but a few weeks ago I put my Z7 next to a HVX200 and liked how the Z7 had less noise, crisper picture & took less light. For me, the positives I saw in the CMOS camera over the CCD camera out weighed the negatives of CMOS in general.

There are trade offs between a CCD & CMOS, just like there are trade offs between HDV, P2, AVCHD & XDCAM EX. Some people will swear by one format & trash the other, but the reality is that each has their own place, their own upsides & their own downsides.

When looking into what camera to buy, you need to look at the price, the features, the recording format, the recording media, the chips, the lens, etc. etc. etc. But more than anything else, you need to figure out how you'll be using your camera, because there are so many great cameras out there, there is no best camera, only the best camera for you.

Jeff Harper · May 25th, 2009, 08:56 PM

Yes, I have asked my wife, who is a normal person. She said that something didn't look quite right when watching the flash sections of the wedding video, but she couldn't put her finger on it.

I wouldn't buy or not buy a camera soley due to the CCD issue, but it is something to consider, especially for a wedding photographer.

I have yet to compare the footage from the two cams side by side but am downloading some FX1000 footage from the same event shot with a 150 now and will soon have a better idea soon as to the overall differences.

Ken Ross · May 26th, 2009, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach Love

Have you asked what a "normal" person thinks? See if they even notice the difference?

I like the look of a CCD better for flashes & fast motion too, but a few weeks ago I put my Z7 next to a HVX200 and liked how the Z7 had less noise, crisper picture & took less light. For me, the positives I saw in the CMOS camera over the CCD camera out weighed the negatives of CMOS in general.

For the kind of work I do (corporate), the CMOS advantages greatly outweigh its disadvantages. Not often mentioned, is the fact that CMOS will often have better color as well as low-light.

I've showed the rolling shutter effect on flashes vs. CCD video in the same environment to my wife and she hardly noticed any difference at all until I pointed it out. Even then she thought it was no big deal. I think that would be the overwhelming customer consensus too. I think the customer would sooner pick up on low-light issues than rolling shutter, flash-based issues.

Stelios Christofides · May 27th, 2009, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I've showed the rolling shutter effect on flashes vs. CCD video in the same environment to my wife and she hardly noticed any difference at all until I pointed it out. Even then she thought it was no big deal. I think that would be the overwhelming customer consensus too. I think the customer would sooner pick up on low-light issues than rolling shutter, flash-based issues.

That's exactly what I did with my wife and son also and they both didn't noticed any difference until I pointed it to them. Rolling shutter, no big deal for me nor to my clients either.

Stelios

Jeff Harper · May 27th, 2009, 07:03 AM

Ken, I'm curious, do you shoot in an environment with flashes going off or with no flashes going off?

Ken Ross · May 27th, 2009, 07:20 AM

No Jeff, you are correct, I shoot in a no flash environment. But honestly, that doesn't make my observations or my wifes' any less valid. I've looked at tons of footage showing the effect and I truly think it's something the videographer gets more anal about than any customer.

Again, I've yet to hear of anyone losing future business or any customer expressing dissatisfaction as a result of this. I firmly believe a cleaner low light video will solicit more positive customer reviews than any negative impact from the rolling shutter effect with flashes.

Jeff, honestly, if I was shooting in a flash-filled environment, I would have zero concern going in with my Z5.

Jeff Harper · May 27th, 2009, 07:24 AM

Like I said, just curious.

Ruturaj Mistry · May 30th, 2009, 12:13 AM

can anybody please upload a clip with photo-flashes.....i would be interested to see how it looks from fx1000.

Tim Akin · May 30th, 2009, 07:27 AM

Ruturaj, you can watch some of the videos I have on Vimeo if you want to get an idea of what the rolling shutter looks like, they were all shot with the FX1000.

The one the link takes you to, the flashes look pretty normal, maybe the type of flash the photographer was using or maybe because I was at the back of the venue zoomed in close, I'm not sure. If you want to see some bad rolling shutter, watch Jenny & Jonathan trailer, when there coming down the aisle and cutting the cake.

Ashley & Bryan Paul - Dear Lovely on Vimeo

Jeff Harper · May 30th, 2009, 07:53 AM

I was watching my work from yesterday download and the rolling flash is terrible. The darker it is the worse it is.

Customers do not have to conciously see things to notice things. To say that customers "will not notice" is erroneous and makes it sound like you think your customers are idiots. They won't be able to verbalize what they see, but if they were to watch a cake cutting in a dark room from the Panasonic then see footage from the FX1000 they would quite prefer the Panasonic, I know I would! I know I did last week.

I know the first time I watched the Panasonic footage shot at my wedding last week I loved the difference and I noticed the pleasing look of the CCD chips immediately.

To all those who have shown their family members rolling shutter and they didn't notice it, that is not even close to an accurate test.

You need to show them a CMOS clip with a dozen flashes going off at the same time in a dark room and you also need to show them the same footage shot from a CCD cam.

I showed my partner last week and she not only noticed, she couldn't believe it.

Now, I just put my Panasonic up for sale, but it is not because I don't love the look of the camera, I do. I just hate the AVCHD. But the differnence in scenes with flashes is dramatic. I wish I could go all CCD cams, but the AVCHD thing made me crazy in less than a week.

I can't imagine anyone in the wedding business full-time that would feel differently. You will find Ruturaj that most people that dismiss the rolling shutter are not full-time wedding videographers.

Luc De Wandel · May 30th, 2009, 10:15 AM

Well, everything is relative. The other day I was filming at the press conference where the come back of Swedish pop group Roxette on the Night of the Proms was announced, and there were at least 20 still photographers, with just as many flashes going off all the time. All three the screen grabs you see here are from the Z7 with its CMOS sensors.

On several occasions I have frames that are entirely overexposed because a flash went off in synchro with the rolling shutter (example 1). On some other frames you can see the typical banding caused by the flash out of synchro with the rolling shutter (example 2). Mind you: in my clip, 4 times out of ten there's a flash in synchro. Personally, I even prefer the frames where it is OUT of synchro, because the overexposure effect is much less visible.

The third example just shows the fantastic image quality of the Z7 (and Z5).

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.

May 25th, 2009, 12:12 AM	#1
Ruturaj Mistry Tourist Join Date: May 2009 Location: Gujarat, India Posts: 4	Is that a problem with FX1000? hi all, recently i read an article about cmos vs ccd sensors? it said that cmos sensor use rolling shutter. further this article stated that: Rolling Shutter, however, can be tricky in a variety of applications. For example, shooting under slow-flickering lights, such as old fluorescents, can be difficult. The effect will appear as a dark bar rolling through your footage. As the CMOS sensors gathers light pixel-by-pixel, there are changes in illumination because the light is flickering on and off. During Panning: A CMOS sensor will appear to stretch or "skew" the image in either horizontal direction, making straight lines appear to bend in a diagonal fashion. i want to know is that the case with Fx 1000, since it is also a cmos based Camera? kindly enlighten, regards, Ruturaj Mistry

May 25th, 2009, 02:47 AM	#3
Zach Love Major Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 944	All things being equal, CCDs are better than CMOS. But things aren't equal, & CMOS makes it possible to have chips w/ higher resolution, greater sensitivity (able to operate in low light better), less noise at a lower price than comparable CCDs. I think it is a fair trade off. These issues should be something you are aware of, but not something that pushes you away from a CMOS camera. __________________ Nothing says you're a serious video maker like S-VHS

May 30th, 2009, 07:27 AM	#13
Tim Akin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Newbern, TN Posts: 414	Ruturaj, you can watch some of the videos I have on Vimeo if you want to get an idea of what the rolling shutter looks like, they were all shot with the FX1000. The one the link takes you to, the flashes look pretty normal, maybe the type of flash the photographer was using or maybe because I was at the back of the venue zoomed in close, I'm not sure. If you want to see some bad rolling shutter, watch Jenny & Jonathan trailer, when there coming down the aisle and cutting the cake. Ashley & Bryan Paul - Dear Lovely on Vimeo __________________ Tim

May 30th, 2009, 10:15 AM	#15
Luc De Wandel Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Knokke-Heist, Belgium Posts: 963	Well, everything is relative. The other day I was filming at the press conference where the come back of Swedish pop group Roxette on the Night of the Proms was announced, and there were at least 20 still photographers, with just as many flashes going off all the time. All three the screen grabs you see here are from the Z7 with its CMOS sensors. On several occasions I have frames that are entirely overexposed because a flash went off in synchro with the rolling shutter (example 1). On some other frames you can see the typical banding caused by the flash out of synchro with the rolling shutter (example 2). Mind you: in my clip, 4 times out of ten there's a flash in synchro. Personally, I even prefer the frames where it is OUT of synchro, because the overexposure effect is much less visible. The third example just shows the fantastic image quality of the Z7 (and Z5). 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. Attached Thumbnails

May 25th, 2009, 02:26 AM	#2
Luc De Wandel Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Knokke-Heist, Belgium Posts: 963	It is also true for the FX1000, as it has CMOS-sensors. But the effect is not that noticeable, you have to pan very quickly to get the skewing effect, and the flickering under fluorescent lights can be solved by choosing the appropriate shutter value. Moreover if you're filming under an intermittent light source, any camera will have a problem with bands rolling over the picture, depending on the shutter speed. CMOS does have it's disadvantages, but unless you're going to be a paparazzo, with photoflashes going off when- and wherever you are shooting, I wouldn't worry about it.

May 25th, 2009, 06:22 AM	#4
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I own 2 FX1000s. I also own a Panasonic HMC150 which has CCDs. I've been looking at the footage from a wedding we shot with the Panasonic, and I much prefer the way flashes look from the Panasonic over the FX1000. There is a significant difference, IMO.

May 25th, 2009, 08:56 PM	#6
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Yes, I have asked my wife, who is a normal person. She said that something didn't look quite right when watching the flash sections of the wedding video, but she couldn't put her finger on it. I wouldn't buy or not buy a camera soley due to the CCD issue, but it is something to consider, especially for a wedding photographer. I have yet to compare the footage from the two cams side by side but am downloading some FX1000 footage from the same event shot with a 150 now and will soon have a better idea soon as to the overall differences.

May 27th, 2009, 07:03 AM	#9
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Ken, I'm curious, do you shoot in an environment with flashes going off or with no flashes going off?

May 27th, 2009, 07:20 AM	#10
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	No Jeff, you are correct, I shoot in a no flash environment. But honestly, that doesn't make my observations or my wifes' any less valid. I've looked at tons of footage showing the effect and I truly think it's something the videographer gets more anal about than any customer. Again, I've yet to hear of anyone losing future business or any customer expressing dissatisfaction as a result of this. I firmly believe a cleaner low light video will solicit more positive customer reviews than any negative impact from the rolling shutter effect with flashes. Jeff, honestly, if I was shooting in a flash-filled environment, I would have zero concern going in with my Z5.

May 27th, 2009, 07:24 AM	#11
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Like I said, just curious.

May 30th, 2009, 12:13 AM	#12
Ruturaj Mistry Tourist Join Date: May 2009 Location: Gujarat, India Posts: 4	can anybody please upload a clip with photo-flashes.....i would be interested to see how it looks from fx1000.

May 30th, 2009, 07:53 AM	#14
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I was watching my work from yesterday download and the rolling flash is terrible. The darker it is the worse it is. Customers do not have to conciously see things to notice things. To say that customers "will not notice" is erroneous and makes it sound like you think your customers are idiots. They won't be able to verbalize what they see, but if they were to watch a cake cutting in a dark room from the Panasonic then see footage from the FX1000 they would quite prefer the Panasonic, I know I would! I know I did last week. I know the first time I watched the Panasonic footage shot at my wedding last week I loved the difference and I noticed the pleasing look of the CCD chips immediately. To all those who have shown their family members rolling shutter and they didn't notice it, that is not even close to an accurate test. You need to show them a CMOS clip with a dozen flashes going off at the same time in a dark room and you also need to show them the same footage shot from a CCD cam. I showed my partner last week and she not only noticed, she couldn't believe it. Now, I just put my Panasonic up for sale, but it is not because I don't love the look of the camera, I do. I just hate the AVCHD. But the differnence in scenes with flashes is dramatic. I wish I could go all CCD cams, but the AVCHD thing made me crazy in less than a week. I can't imagine anyone in the wedding business full-time that would feel differently. You will find Ruturaj that most people that dismiss the rolling shutter are not full-time wedding videographers.