How bad is the rolling shutter effect?
 

Now that the HC1 and A1U have been out for some time, how do those of you with these cameras feel about the rolling shutter effect from the CMOS sensor? (not all pixels exposed at the same time resulting in "bendy", displaced objects)

Are any of you seeing this often?

Are there workarounds to avoid this?

Have any of you abandoned the camera because of this?

I bought the HC1 for my wife a couple of weeks ago, and haven't noticed any of the problems you asked about. All of the video we have shot with it has been great. I also just bought a Z1 for myself and after comparing both cameras using my XBR 960 as reference(since this is what I watch what I shot on) the HC1 seems to show more detail. The color however is much better on the Z1. Anyway, I bought them to have fun with, and not to produce anything major. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you describe, sounds like you may have a timebase error.

For me too ! It was an important point when I decided to purchase this little toy !!!

You can see it (but not often) only when the camera is in Memory mode (Still photography). On fast moving objects... When you take a photo the reaction of the CMOS sensor seems to be different compared to the video mode. On video the rolling shutter effect is not present.

I've downloaded some videos taken with the HC1 (As usual, I think it was from Kaku) that featured a large van driving rapidly past the camcorder. Basically when the video was paused, you could see that the van was "leaning" due to the rolling shutter. But play it back at normal speed and its just not noticable. I think the issue is so negligable as to be safely ignored in making a purchase decision.

Besides, its pretty much a mute point; what other HD cam are you going to buy in this quality/price bracket? I mean, until Canon releases the Optura HDV! (Ok, seriously, if they don't release that this year I'm going to fly to Japan and set up a tent in front of their office)

www.philipwilliams.com

Rolling-shutter effects happen in video and stills mode - it's just that in video mode it's generally not noticeable. It's not a timecode thing, it's just that different parts of the shot are 'captured' at slightly different moments (in horizontal slices) so items moving fast left-to-right can look distorted.
It's there, but i don't think it's a showstopper at all really.

last thing, (and absolutely nothing personal to you Philip..) but i see this SO often on several boards....
it's "moot" and not "mute" !! Completely different words. so many people get this wrong. pet peeve of mine.... no worries.
another one is "phase" and "faze" = completely different meanings.

I made a short clip of it if you'd like to see it:

http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/showthread.php?t=4133
(Check out the bus, how slanted it is)

Scroll down to post #9 and it is there. I can't direct link you to it as you can only access those files from the forums.

That's it, I'm just gonna shut up all together and turn into a moot.

I am "forced" to accept the HC1 and its flaws if I want an HDV camcorder that I can afford, since I don't have the budget of Ray Boltz. ;-)

Like many others, I have been trying to decide whether to purchase a 3-ccd SD camcorder with more control (like a DSR-PDX10) or one of these new HDV cams as an upgrade to my aging consumer equipment.

I am leaning toward the HC1 (I just can't justify the extra cost of the A1U) for several reasons, not the least of which is that it will provide me with something I will still be happy with in the future, when HDV is more common and all of my neighbors are shooting in high-def.

My only real concern has been the rolling shutter effect and whether it will prove to be a significant obstacle to acquiring nice footage. From what I see here and elsewhere, it appears to be something that most people can live with. I intend to use the camera for "narrative" projects (and outdoor/nature shots and other purposes if possible) and I realize that it is not a "pro" camera by any means (and there are many who feel it would be a bad choice for this intended purpose) but it will still provide a significant and noticeable benefit over my Optura Pi camcorders.

And Philip, that "moot" reply was pretty witty. :-)

The "bendy" effect on fast moving things is really something you only see in stills; however, if the camera is wobbling up and down you can get a "rubbery" look to the video due to the rolling shutter. It's subtle but occasionally pretty noticeable, I haven't done any tests yet but it seems to be more noticeable at higher shutter speeds. If you avoid handheld stuff (or use a brace or something) it's not a problem.

Oh wow, the Optura Pi, a classic! A Pi in good condition will fetch a good chunk of change to put towards an HC1. Man, I really wish Canon hadn't abandoned progressive scan...

Witty commentaries are excellent ways to distract from misspellings, bad grammar and lack of technical knowledge.

I sold one Optura Pi just this week, but I'm keeping my second one for now. It is still a great camera and I have yet to see a new one with a better SD image than the 30P it produces (without spending a bunch of money). Many people discount it because it is "old" and small. But... I can't wait to get a new camcorder. :-) *rubs hands anxiously*

Sorry Canon fans, but those models don't do progressive scans. It's an alternate image-sampling system called "frame movie mode" or something to that effect. It allows a few of the advantages of progressive scanning, but it lowers the vertical resolution in the process.

Sorry Stephen, but I will have to disagree. I owned the original Canon Elura and, like the first Optura and Optura Pi, it was marketed as having a true progressive scan CCD. After the XL1 and GL1 came out with their "frame mode", people just started to assume that all the canons with "progressive scan" were using the "frame mode". At one point I actually began to wonder myself, even though the progressive scan footage from my Elura was incredible (always trust your eyes!). I finally laid the issue to rest by shooting test charts in 60i and 30P. The Elura didn't lose one line of resolution in progressive scan. Its the real deal, 30P.

<edit>
And lest I forget, here are the test charts for anyone interested:
http://www.philipwilliams.com/eluracharts.aspx
They're definitely not professional quality shots, but they ARE a controlled A/B comparison between interlaced and progressive scan modes. I've got a couple shots where I really zoomed in on the frames too.
</edit>

www.philipwilliams.com

You've correctly stated the key phrase in this issue, "it was marketed as".

Dude, I don't know if you've just got something against the old Elura/Optura line or what, but please don't patronize me, especially when you are 100% wrong. I'm not very argumentative under normal circumstances, but I'd hate for a reader to stumble upon your post and think these great early Canon's didn't have real progressive scan. Did you even look at the screen shots on my web site? Did you own one of these cams? Or have you just spent a lot of time reading about the GL/XL series frame mode?
Once again: PLEASE LOOK AT THE SCREEN SHOTS
http://www.philipwilliams.com/eluracharts.aspx

Also, please see the following:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...=7379&pageno=1

And this:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...=8272&pageno=0

Oh yeah, and the Elura 2MC as well:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...=7448&pageno=1

Doh! Almost forgot the original Optura:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...=8275&pageno=0

Nothing personal Stephen, but if you're going to spread "information" on this forum and poo poo technical information provided by other readers, consider actually doing research first. All you had to do was go to canondv.com and search for [Optura Progressive Scan] and click on a couple of links.