Rolling Shutter??

Jeff Harper · February 21st, 2009, 09:45 AM

Khoi the lens starts our wider. Explain to me how I can start with a wider lens, not zoom in "as much" and still get an extreme closeup? Turning up the gain and using digital zoom has been suggested also. Sorry, it doesn't work. By the time you zoom out to a point where you have the correct exposure you end up with a medium shot, not a closeup.

Ken Ross · February 21st, 2009, 09:53 AM

Todd, I think you need to judge for yourself regarding the rolling shutter effect. Again I don't see it as the issue that some say it is and, just as importantly, I have not heard of one single complaint from a customer of any of these guys. In my mind that's where the 'rubber meets the road'. Let's be honest, flash effects with CCD based cameras isn't terrific either and CCDs are prone to smearing, something totally absent in CMOS cameras. Smearing can be a pretty ugly artifact.

The other undeniable advantage of the CMOS setup in the 1000/Z5 is the low-light capability. If you've handled HD cameras in the past, seeing what these new Sonys can do in low-light is truly extraordinary. I don't feel my Z5 gives up anything to my VX2100 in low light, and its image, whether SD or HD, blows my 2100 & 2000 away. I've done A/B tests on my 2100 vs. my Z5 in SD, and I was pleasantly surprised at how much better the image was in standard def from both a sharpness & exposure latitude standpoint. But again, in terms of low-light, I don't think any cam anywhere near this price range can touch these cam's images.

As for lens ramping, this has been discussed ad nauseum and we know this is inherent in any cam's lens with a longer reach and anywhere near (and quite a bit above) these camera's price range. Unless you want a very very heavy, very very expensive lens/camcorder, this is the way it is with a lens of this zoom range. Most don't seem to be impacted by it (I haven't, but I don't do wedding videography). Even so, as has been said before, you can avoid the problem by limiting how far you zoom. For me, the real beauty of this lens is the terrific wide angle/zoom ratio. This is something I would think any videographer would truly appreciate. When I compare the wide angle image with my VX2100, it almost looks like the 2100 has been zoomed up. It's just great being able to achieve this wide angle without any heavy, image-deteriorating auxiliary lenses. I've never seen this great a ratio between the wide angle image and the fully-zoomed image.

Your best bet is to get hold of one of these cams (Z5 or FX1000) at a retailer or even as a loaner, and play with it. We all have different needs and only you can determine what's best for you.

Tom Hardwick · February 21st, 2009, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Clark

What are you guys doing about this when you shoot weddings? It seems like there is no way to use any camera with Cmos chips for weddings. There are always going to be camera flashes from the Photographer. A lot of my editing uses slow motion and cannot afford the time to try and get around rolling shutter.

I'm with you Todd, and until CMOS settles down I'll stick with CCDs thank you. My last cake cutting lasted 14 seconds yet 64 electronic flashes went off

tom hardwick on blip.tv

OK, the wmv file you see here looks a bit CMOS-ish, but on DVD each flash looks as you'd expect it to look - simply brighter. The light hit CCDs inside a Z1, that's why.

OK, early days of CCD were filled with vertical smear wails from us all, but development has sure tamed that. CMOS is fine for stills, but it'll take the next models to sort the partial frame exposure problem. Which is why all the brand new cameras from Canon, JVC and Panasonic go with CCDs.

So what are we doing about it Todd? Shooting onto CCD, that's what. For anything other than paparazzi shots CMOS holds lots of aces though, so don't discount the Z5, 7 and EX1.

Jeff - sounds like you should have bought a Z7. It has the least ramping 12x lens you can buy and is one reason people buy it over the Z5.

tom.

Khoi Pham · February 21st, 2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Khoi the lens starts our wider. Explain to me how I can start with a wider lens, not zoom in "as much" and still get an extreme closeup? Turning up the gain and using digital zoom has been suggested also. Sorry, it doesn't work. By the time you zoom out to a point where you have the correct exposure you end up with a medium shot, not a closeup.

So it is a little wider, at 4.2 and the old VX2100 was at 6.0, if you zoom in to 15X probably that will be equipvalent, your f stop will not goes down to 3.4, maybe at 2.8 at that will be just fine, set your auto gain to max out at 9db and if you zoom in full, auto gain to 9db should compensate for the loss of light, but really I think you have bad buyer remorse, you should sell it to me for cheap and go get the Pany 150 and you'll be much happier with more robust codec,twice as efficient compared to MPEG2, CCD chips, no rolling shutter better functionality..., but seriously, I will buy if from but you have to make it cheap. (-:
my email address is khoi@proeditproductions.com
make me an offer.

Ken Ross · February 21st, 2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

OK, early days of CCD were filled with vertical smear wails from us all, but development has sure tamed that. CMOS is fine for stills, but it'll take the next models to sort the partial frame exposure problem. Which is why all the brand new cameras from Canon, JVC and Panasonic go with CCDs.

tom.

Tom, not so fast. First of all Panasonic came out with a new 3-CMOS camera, and I'll bet the bank you'll see them before too long from Canon. This is the new technology and its benefits can't be ignored. They will generally have better color (as I've seen with the Z5), less power consumption and an immunity from smear. Yes smear is better controlled than it had been, but it's still there for sure with CCDs.

Ken Ross · February 21st, 2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham

.... but really I think you have bad buyer remorse, you should sell it to me for cheap and go get the Pany 150 and you'll be much happier...

I actually agree with this. I think if you read Jeff's posts, he really doesn't sound like a satisfied customer at all. Yes, no camera is perfect, but Jeff does seem to have serious issues with this camera's weaknesses. If I were him I probably would have sold it already and gotten the Panasonic.

Khoi Pham · February 21st, 2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I actually agree with this. I think if you read Jeff's posts, he really doesn't sound like a satisfied customer at all. Yes, no camera is perfect, but Jeff does seem to have serious issues with this camera's weaknesses. If I were him I probably would have sold it already and gotten the Panasonic.

Heh heh here is another guy that think you should sell it to me cheap and be happier. (-:::

Todd Clark · February 21st, 2009, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham

"I can no longer get the stunning closeups I got with the my old 12X cams."

Don't zoom in all the way to 20X, zoom in to 12X and you still get stunning closeups like your old cam.(-:

That is not even close to being the same.

I noticed that the specs on the 150 also show lens ramping. Man this is tough!!

Jeff Harper · February 21st, 2009, 10:35 AM

Ken, the Pansonic starts out quite wide also, and while it is nice, if it is of no special or need to a videographer it is meaningless. I like it fine, but so what? If it limits my ability to do get my shots (and it does) what good is it?

Regarding complaints, etc., I have friend who says he will not purchase a new camera yet because customers are not complaining about 4:3 yet.

Customers do not bring 90% of their complaints back to vendors; more importantly it's not just the customers that wedding videographers are worried about, but the potential customers who see the finished product.

You are right, since you don't do weddings you don't know. You won't find yourself editing a highlight clip and come to a complete stop because of the flash that fills the bottom of a customers face (but not the top) during a closeup kiss or exchanged glance between two people that pretty much ruins it. I edited around 40-45 weddings last year and never once was a flash an issue, because the flash on CCD chips looks like a flash. With the rolling shutter of CMOSD it looks like I'm shooting with a defective camera.

Ken, if you do not shoot with the FX1000, Z5, etc., under conditions similar to those of wedding videographers you cannot understand the ramifications.

Tom Hardwick · February 21st, 2009, 10:37 AM

Most 12x zooms ramp from f/1.6 to f/2.8, but Panasonic's 13x zoom goes from f/1.6 to f/3.0 so is (theoretically) even worse. Don't send Jeff there - his Z5 is a 20x that's f/1.6 to f/3.4.

tom.

Jeff Harper · February 21st, 2009, 10:44 AM

Tom, you are absolutely correct in that I would've been happier with the Z7. Mind you I'm not complaining for complaining sake.

Someone is asking and I'm giving my real world experience with the camera.

You are right Ken, I'm a wedding videographer who finds the FX1000 less than optimal for shooting weddings. It would actually be perfect as a rear cam, but not doesn't work for me at all as front one.

Yes, I'm sure it would be nice if I sold my cameras, Ken, then there would be no alternate opinions on the camera and everyone could just get on with the business of congratulating each other on their purchases.

Todd Clark · February 21st, 2009, 11:16 AM

Jeff...if you had to do it over what camera do you think you would go for?

I noticed you mention something about the Z7. I will have to look into that one.

Oh well...looks like the Z7 has cmos also not to mention out of my price range.

Roger Shore · February 21st, 2009, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Clark

Maybe I should check into the Canopus AVCHD2HQ converter. Is this a free utility? Does coversion loose quality at all and what format are you converting to?

Yes the Canopus AVCHD2HQ converter is a free utility, but it does require the Canopus HQ codec (as supplied with Edius and Procoder) to work. It is possible to find a freeware version of the codec fairly easily, but there is some debate as to whether these freeware versions of the encoding side of the codec are supposed to be out there!??!

The quality is excellent - it's difficult to see any loss at all, and of course the intraframe format makes it very easy to edit.
It's designed to work woth the Edius NLE, but I have manged to edit it in Premeire, although exporting the final edited file is a bit of an adventure! Probably best to stick with Edius.

Another alternative with Panasonic AVCHD is to use their own transcoder, which you can get from here . This converts the footage to DVCProHD, which you can then import into Premiere CS3 or CS4. Again, an intraframe format, simple to edit.

Or there is of course Cineform Neo Scene, yet another alternative - although that one isn't free!

I think the number of tools now available, to allow AVCHD to be converted into an 'editable' form, pretty much rid us from the early fears about dealing with this 'difficult' format.

And with cameras like the HMC 150 offering tapeless recording with professional features, all at a (fairly!) reasonable price, (and with no rolling shutter issues) I think AVCHD may perhaps at last be considered for serious 'prosumer' use.

Jeff Harper · February 21st, 2009, 02:08 PM

Based on what I know at this point in time, the Z7.

In fact I'm thinking of putting one of my Fx1000s for sale and replacing it with the Z7.

As Tom has pointed out the lens ramping is supposedly severe with the Panasonic. Other than the lens ramping I would look hard at the Panny also.

If you were buying two, I would get the Z7 first and follow with an FX1000.

Ken Ross · February 21st, 2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Ken, the Pansonic starts out quite wide also, and while it is nice, if it is of no special or need to a videographer it is meaningless. I like it fine, but so what? If it limits my ability to do get my shots (and it does) what good is it?

Jeff, I would think having a wide angle as nice as the 1000 would be ideal for wedding work. Yes, there are times you need to get in close, but there are certainly many times you want a nice wide shot that the 1000 can deliver.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Regarding complaints, etc., I have friend who says he will not purchase a new camera yet because customers are not complaining about 4:3 yet.

Customers do not bring 90% of their complaints back to vendors; more importantly it's not just the customers that wedding videographers are worried about, but the potential customers who see the finished product.

Well interestingly, that's one of the great things about the HDV format...and the Sonys in particular. If you need 4:3, you've got it and you've got it in a better picture than the cameras that are dedicated 4:3 cams like our VX2100s. The picture in 4:3 is simply better with the new Sonys than they were with the 2100.

If you need HD, you've got that too. What makes the Z5 so great is that you've also got a sleek, all-digital, tapeless cam too if you so choose. This is a rarity in the world of camcorders to have all this rolled into one camera. Of course you can use the digital card recorder on the 1000 too, but it doesn't meld quite as nicely.

In terms of 'potenial' customers, I see no reason why potential customers would be any less satisfied with your results than your customers. Since I haven't heard of a single complaint regarding rolling shutter from any customers of the guys doing this kind of work, I would suspect the same would be true of your 'potential' customers. Again, I've closely examined footage from these cams from some of the wedding guys and I just don't see it as big a deal as some say. Yes, I've seen the flashes go off and I've seen the effect and I still don't think it's as big a deal as some say.

But Jeff, again, if you're not happy with it I don't know why you don't consider a trade or selling it on Ebay. Why put up with a tool that isn't working for you? I honestly think if I felt like you that's what I'd do.

I'm in San Francisco right now where I did my first job with the Z5 (in SD) and I'm now here on pleasure with my wife. I've been shooting with the Z5 in HD around San Francisco for fun and the results look just stunning...at least on the flip-out LCD. Obviously when I get home I'll connect it to my 60" Kuro and take a closer look. I also reviewed the preliminary shots I did for the client in SD at the client's office, and he was delighted with what he saw. These clips were reviewed on a 50" LG plasma and in my mind that's a 'worst case scenario' since often times SD clips look like crap on an HD display. I had done a project for this client 2 years ago and he felt the picture quality of what he saw was better than my first project. These were raw clips which I'm often reluctant to show a client since they often have trouble envisioning an edited project. I felt comfortable with this client since he's seen my work before.

February 21st, 2009, 09:45 AM	#16
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Khoi the lens starts our wider. Explain to me how I can start with a wider lens, not zoom in "as much" and still get an extreme closeup? Turning up the gain and using digital zoom has been suggested also. Sorry, it doesn't work. By the time you zoom out to a point where you have the correct exposure you end up with a medium shot, not a closeup.

February 21st, 2009, 09:53 AM	#17
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Todd, I think you need to judge for yourself regarding the rolling shutter effect. Again I don't see it as the issue that some say it is and, just as importantly, I have not heard of one single complaint from a customer of any of these guys. In my mind that's where the 'rubber meets the road'. Let's be honest, flash effects with CCD based cameras isn't terrific either and CCDs are prone to smearing, something totally absent in CMOS cameras. Smearing can be a pretty ugly artifact. The other undeniable advantage of the CMOS setup in the 1000/Z5 is the low-light capability. If you've handled HD cameras in the past, seeing what these new Sonys can do in low-light is truly extraordinary. I don't feel my Z5 gives up anything to my VX2100 in low light, and its image, whether SD or HD, blows my 2100 & 2000 away. I've done A/B tests on my 2100 vs. my Z5 in SD, and I was pleasantly surprised at how much better the image was in standard def from both a sharpness & exposure latitude standpoint. But again, in terms of low-light, I don't think any cam anywhere near this price range can touch these cam's images. As for lens ramping, this has been discussed ad nauseum and we know this is inherent in any cam's lens with a longer reach and anywhere near (and quite a bit above) these camera's price range. Unless you want a very very heavy, very very expensive lens/camcorder, this is the way it is with a lens of this zoom range. Most don't seem to be impacted by it (I haven't, but I don't do wedding videography). Even so, as has been said before, you can avoid the problem by limiting how far you zoom. For me, the real beauty of this lens is the terrific wide angle/zoom ratio. This is something I would think any videographer would truly appreciate. When I compare the wide angle image with my VX2100, it almost looks like the 2100 has been zoomed up. It's just great being able to achieve this wide angle without any heavy, image-deteriorating auxiliary lenses. I've never seen this great a ratio between the wide angle image and the fully-zoomed image. Your best bet is to get hold of one of these cams (Z5 or FX1000) at a retailer or even as a loaner, and play with it. We all have different needs and only you can determine what's best for you.

February 21st, 2009, 10:35 AM	#24
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Ken, the Pansonic starts out quite wide also, and while it is nice, if it is of no special or need to a videographer it is meaningless. I like it fine, but so what? If it limits my ability to do get my shots (and it does) what good is it? Regarding complaints, etc., I have friend who says he will not purchase a new camera yet because customers are not complaining about 4:3 yet. Customers do not bring 90% of their complaints back to vendors; more importantly it's not just the customers that wedding videographers are worried about, but the potential customers who see the finished product. You are right, since you don't do weddings you don't know. You won't find yourself editing a highlight clip and come to a complete stop because of the flash that fills the bottom of a customers face (but not the top) during a closeup kiss or exchanged glance between two people that pretty much ruins it. I edited around 40-45 weddings last year and never once was a flash an issue, because the flash on CCD chips looks like a flash. With the rolling shutter of CMOSD it looks like I'm shooting with a defective camera. Ken, if you do not shoot with the FX1000, Z5, etc., under conditions similar to those of wedding videographers you cannot understand the ramifications.

February 21st, 2009, 10:37 AM	#25
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Most 12x zooms ramp from f/1.6 to f/2.8, but Panasonic's 13x zoom goes from f/1.6 to f/3.0 so is (theoretically) even worse. Don't send Jeff there - his Z5 is a 20x that's f/1.6 to f/3.4. tom.

February 21st, 2009, 10:44 AM	#26
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Tom, you are absolutely correct in that I would've been happier with the Z7. Mind you I'm not complaining for complaining sake. Someone is asking and I'm giving my real world experience with the camera. You are right Ken, I'm a wedding videographer who finds the FX1000 less than optimal for shooting weddings. It would actually be perfect as a rear cam, but not doesn't work for me at all as front one. Yes, I'm sure it would be nice if I sold my cameras, Ken, then there would be no alternate opinions on the camera and everyone could just get on with the business of congratulating each other on their purchases.

February 21st, 2009, 11:16 AM	#27
Todd Clark Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Parma, Oh Posts: 172	Jeff...if you had to do it over what camera do you think you would go for? I noticed you mention something about the Z7. I will have to look into that one. Oh well...looks like the Z7 has cmos also not to mention out of my price range.

February 21st, 2009, 02:08 PM	#29
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Based on what I know at this point in time, the Z7. In fact I'm thinking of putting one of my Fx1000s for sale and replacing it with the Z7. As Tom has pointed out the lens ramping is supposedly severe with the Panasonic. Other than the lens ramping I would look hard at the Panny also. If you were buying two, I would get the Z7 first and follow with an FX1000.