I can't remember exactly why I choose that narrow angle. Perhaps I wanted sharper spots, but of course the result with 180° is more important.
For blending pictures together I wrote a little java-app:
http://www.dominik.ws/PictureAverager.jar (just double-click for launching)
and the source-code:
http://www.dominik.ws/PictureAverager.java
It makes an average-picture out of all pictures in a given folder.
It works like this:
1. Choose the folder with the pictures (all java supported formats like png, jpeg, gif,...). Of course they all must have the same dimensions.
2. Choose the output-filename. The output will be saved as 32bit-png.
3. choose whether to normalize the result or to get the true average.
4. press start
It solely uses integer-arithmetic. First it sums all the channelPixels. Then the per channelPixel result is calculated with the formula sum/pictureCount or with normalization turned on 255*sum/maxSum where maxSum is max(max(red pixels), max(green pixels), max(blue pixels)).

Sony EX1 and JVC HD 101 side by side comparison. Slow and fast pan 25p 1/50th second.

http://www.ingenioustv.com/clips/ex1...otion-test.mov

Thank you Alister, they look pretty damn identical to me, even single stepping through it (aside from the rolling shutter obviously)

I don't want to be seen laboring the point but i wouldn't want others reading this thread to assume it was a problem (or at least a general problem with the EX)

cheers
paul

Thanks once again Alister for taking the time to do this. Yet again, they look the same to me (ie both jerky!) certainly neither camera has an obvious "problem" compared to the other.
Out of interest, I'd say "D" was the EX1, just has that less video look to it (a plus point!). Am I right?
Agree with you Paul, I've said the same above more than once, that people should not "assume" there is a problem here, just be aware that some folks have flagged it and bear it in mind when doing your own tests.
Steve

Yes D is the EX1.

I have not used my HD101 for some time and it was certainly interesting to see the two side by side on a big HD monitor.

I will stick my neck out and say that I do think that the picture quality from the EX1 is quite possibly the nicest I've seen from any video camera. Ever!
It's so much more similar to what you get from a DSLR, very smooth and slightly muted, not "electronic-looking" at all. When I had the camera I put in BBC-like flat settings to get the best DR, exported a still into Photoshop and did some basic manipulation to simulate a grade, and the pic looked gorgeous.
Steve

The clipped areas of the jvc are looking very ugly. Is that normal? Also it has less detail, but a lot of that video-style-sharpening at lower frequencies, a narrow dynamic range and a lot of ca.
The ex1 looks like I love it: wide dynamic range, sharp, clear and natural.

Just a warning here from a housekeeping perspective: I have removed some posts from public view that are pretty much just borderline flaming -- pretty soon now I'm going to start locking accounts. Some of you guys really need to knock it off. You know who you are. It's only a matter of time until I kill this thread...

Also worth mentioning that the other problem reported on DVX User mentioned earlier in this thread looks to be confirmed that the operator was shooting with no shutter on!

Can we just conclude that the EX1 performs in progressive mode like any other video camera and that progressive video doesn't quite have the nice motion that film has - then we can move on :)

To be fair on the HD101 it was probably bordering on being over exposed. Lots more quite harsh enhancement from the JVC but then it was running the stock factory setup while the Ex1 was running my preferred profile which has much reduced detail enhancement.

Just an update, I was one of them thinking the EX1 had more judders but I must admit after doing a quick side by side comparison off a Panasonic HVX2000 (not the 200) and the EX1 at 24p that both showed equal amounts of judders. I was shooting cars driving by at about 50 kms and was very happy to see that a much more expensive camera with ccd's as opposed to cmos and rolling shutter showed the same effect.
So yes, you must adapt your shooting techniques to 24p recording. I noticed that if you are to get a static shot of a car going by, it's doesn't look great, but if you precisely pan as the car goes by, what a difference, it felt very cinematic!

After having read these posts and posts and posts about 24p juddery, and how the EX-1 has more judders etc... I just kept saying in my head, don't these people know that you can't shoot 24p the same as 60i or 60p??? When it's all said and done, it would appear that this is the case. I've long known that there are restrictions with the way one shoots 24p vs. the standard 60i (starting out on DVX's you learn this to be the case early on). I have to say too, I know it's maybe a little lame, but there's just something pleasing to me, when I see 24p over 60i. I shoot most everything I can in 24p, and I'm pleased to know that my next camera will be able to perform it so aptly.

Dave

"There is nothing wrong with the way the EX1 captures motion."

I can't think of a better way to conclude this thread.

Thanks Alister,