http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/7135/rs1000bt4.jpg

Some 1 post the trailer. I view it and saw this above !

Not to minimize this, but even without the rolling shutter effect in this pix, your exposure would have been ruined anyway had you used a CCD equipped camera at that same instant.

Of course when we freeze the instant in time, it won't look pretty either way (CCD or CMOS). Again, I just don't think customers are going to notice it during normal motion. That's just MO.

Exactly. I would like to start shooting 16:9 and start getting my feet wet with editing HD and authoring Blu-ray. Also, I'm on my third Sony camera and still using the same batteries, chargers and Vari-zoom remote control. I'm one of those guys that just happens to like Sony video gear, I have Sony video cameras, DVD players, HDTV, etc.

- John

Auto focus
 

I'm also interested in whether the auto focus is up to par for keeping skaters in sharp focus against the bright white walls of your typical skating rink.


John I have only used the FX1000 twice so far and believe the auto focus does "hunt" a little. Defintly not as quick as the VX2000 or TRV900 but having said that I was filming a dance show and concentrating on other things in what was a very loud and full on enviroment.

I didn't notice that often the auto focus to be a problem and so I think once framed up a subject would stay in focus fine.

This camera is beautiful on the tripod and seems to really allow you to do nice pans. It to me seems more ergonomic than the Z1 so for tracking fast motion I would think it will be a winner for you. The Z1 to me always felt a bit "clunky".

As for rolling shutter I haven't had a problem with this and in fact looking back at the dance show which had millions of lights going off the pictures were fine.

I also filmed cricket recently and didn't notice any problems with fast panning.

I still need to source a good audio XLR box. I checked out the "Juice box" but it seems a few too many buttons on it for me and the Line/XLR button sit underneath the unit which seems not logical at all. Looking for something smaller that is hiss free.

Jeff, how bad is the autofocus on the 1000? Does it tend to hunt?

Auto focus
 

I also found in a recent dance concert that if the FX is set to auto focus and a scene goes from all black to all lights on, the camera really hunts for focus.

I also found this on the Z1. Its like it took a good 3-4 secs to auto focus!

I never noticed it on the VX2000 or TRV900 to this degree.

It didnt do this on all the scenes and maybe it was in relation to where my last framed shot was if you get my gist.

But as I said in an earlier post once it in focus it is no problem & I certainly haven't noticed any slipping in and out of focus issues.

I am about to edit the dance concert and so will report back on this one.

Martin, it would seem to mandate manual focus in that case.

I don't have a Z5 or FX1000 but I do have a V1 and a VX2100. IMHO, because of the much higher resolution, I think focus is more critical in HD cameras than it is in SD. So focus mistakes/problems/issues become much more glaring when shooting HD. I think my VX2100 is pretty typical. I have noticed the focus hunts occasionally. I just seems like the hunting winds up being a little less obvious when shooting SD video.

The hunting for focus is occasionally poor with the FX1000. Most of the time it performs satisfactorily, on some occasions it is downright scary. I've had to go full wide or zoom a bit and find something the camera could focus on before I could resume shooting. It is really startling when it happens. Thankfully it doesn't happen often.

This thread's title refers to rolling shutter, etc. As far as I am concerned, forget rolling shutter. No biggie.

Instead, I'd like to share the joy I have found since I became familiar with the phenomenon of F-drop, AKA lens ramping. If you have an FX7 you are familiar with it. I didn't know what F-Drop was when I owned the FX7, and it was one of the reasons I disliked the camera. It is all becoming clearer now that I understand this phenomenon a bit better and know there is a name for it.

The FX1000 suffers from f-drop and apparently with a 20x zoom it is just the way it has to be. In case you are not familiar, when you zoom in on a subject, running the iris manually(in my case I do extreme closeups of faces in my work) the Iris has to compensate and it closes up automatically and underexposes the image. In other words you cannot get a usable image in full zoom when focusing on a face, or anything else, for that matter when running the iris in manual mode.

Apparently if I knew what the specs meant before I purchased the cam I would've know about this beforehand.

Having bought my second FX1000 with the presumption I would figure out the exposure issue, I just today, the day after opening the box for the new cam, found out what lens ramping is.

I have grown to really love the FX1000 othewise and it shoots phenomenal images. However I would have likely at least considered a Z1 for a second cam had I known about this.

Jeff, why not let the cam control the iris until you're fully zoomed and then lock it down? Even if you feel the cam is overexposing a bit in automatic (as so many seem to do), you can always exposure bias toward the negative a stop or two.

I hear what you're saying Ken. That is what I have usually done in the past. That doesn't work when you have lens ramping involved.

That's what was driving me crazy until I learned what it is and that the FX1000 has it.

When you zoom in, almost immediately the iris starts to close up. By the time you get to full zoom you are at f3.4 and cannot change it. You can close it down further, but you cannot open it further.

Hans in another thread helpfully pointed out that I "should have known about this" beforehand. But I didn't. Now I do.

A 20x zoom lens doesn't necessarily have to have f-drop, Jeff. But the lenses that do have consistant F-stops thoughout the zoom range can get to be pretty darned expensive. Most professional broadcast lenses can zoom without changing the f-stop. The lens in the Z5/FX1000 is an amazing lens at it's price point.

Jeff, maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't see why leaving it on automatic and then locking it down wouldn't work (assuming you're staying at that same focal length). As long as there is sufficient lighting, the camera should be compensating for the reduction in lens speed as you zoom.

You are correct Greg, I meant that the f-drop was ineveitable in this price range of camera, but was trying to keep my post brief. In my world 20x zoom means fdrop. In the broadcast world I have been reading it is a whole 'nuther deal.

Video Lenses: How They All Work

Ken, I'm sorry, I didn't explain myself well. I want to be able to open the iris to 1.8 at full zoom. The camera won't do that.

This is something that apparently many of the people on this forum understand, but I didn't, and honestly still don't, but I accept it is a limitation of 20x lens in my price range.

There is a lot to learn with this camera for someone like me who came into the business with no technical know-how and who had the luxury of learning to shoot with the idiot-proof VX2100.

Setting exposure was so easy, there was no F-Drop, and even I captured stunning images with it. This camera operates very similarly in many ways, but is requiring much more effort and study.

Ah, OK, now I've got it.

It shouldn't be too bad once you've adjusted to the reduction in your aperture. If your primary concern knowing this drop is inevitable now is the exposure, then I would just let the camera adjust for it and then lock everything down or adjust as necessary from that point.

Besides potentially changing the exposure throughout the zoom range because of f-drop, it also changes the dof slightly. Which might not be ideal for artistic purposes.

Outstanding feedback, thanks guys. I'm off to the races.

Lots of assumptions and misinterpretations in your post Jeff.
Firstly ramping is a manufacturing design intent to limit the size, weight, bulk and cost of the zoom. It's perfectly possible to have non ramping zooms, as the 10x f/1.4 fitted to my 1974 canon 1014E proves.

So to keep the spec looking good ("20x f/1.6 zoom using a 72 mm filter thread'') the maximum aperture is allowed to diminish the more you zoom to telephoto. If you had a constant f/1.6 max aperture the lens would be physically huge and as I say - very costly indeed.

You say, ''when you zoom in on a subject, running the iris manually the Iris has to compensate and it closes up automatically and underexposes the image''

This again is only true under very specific circumstances, and these are that you're forced to use max (f/1.6) aperture and that the shutter speed and gain settings are locked down. Then - yes - you'll get under exposure the more you zoom in. But if you were shooting at a locked f/5.6 (say) then the exposure would remain fine throughout your entire zoom range.

So your sentence that says, ''In other words you cannot get a usable image in full zoom when focusing on a face, or anything else, for that matter when running the iris in manual mode'' is silly nonsense, as I'm sure you'll agree.

BTW, the 'idiot proof' VX2100 most certainly has a ramping zoom. It loses a stop (f/1.6 to f/2.4) whereas the FX1000 loses two stops.

tom.

Jeff, please keep threads on topic.

Thanks in advance,

-gb-

Since the last 14 posts had been off topic your admonition of me makes me the poster boy for bad forum behaviour:) I'll stick to one thread too, since I was discussing this on two threads, not exactly kosher.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for their supportive feedback. Shoot went very well today, much better for having had this discussion this morning.

Which can only lead us to the inevitable conclusion that you love your FX1000. :)

Well, with the lens ramping it is officially a love-hate relationship. If I thought the Panny (what is it, the 150?) would match and give me those extreme closeups with more exposure, I would buy one to use as a front cam.

As far as rolling shudder (the topic of this thread!) what I have seen is not bad so far, but then the lighting was really great yesterday.

Panasonic HMC150. F1.6 - 3.

I guess Jeff is sticking with the 1000. ;)

Probably :-)

I'm sure my gyrations with these cams must be amusing to watch. Well at least I have a place to come and whine!

FX1000 heavy for hand held
 

i lent my 1000 to a friend yesterday to film a wedding that I was also at and we both agree that the 1000 is too heavy for filming weddings.

For those days where alot of time is spent off of the tripod well there can be no doubt it would make one tired in the old arms pretty quickly.

He comes from the VX2000 world and I have suggested that a Merlin steady cam may be a good investment for him.

He was also saying he thought that the colours were not jumping out at him. I think this may be via the viewfinder as he's not really a LCD man (comes from that old way of doing it - just a dig at the viewfinder boys out there ha ha).

We will firewire out to computer today and report back.


Martin.

We'll be awaiting your report!

Just started to render a sample clip from last night. Also let me say I am aware that I have said the rolling shutter wasn't so bad with the camera. I should have waited to make a statement until I edited last night's footage into a short clip.

I've never been one to mind the flash from cameras as some of my friends do. Never bothered me. It's part of the action, so I say don't worry about it.

But the banding from the rolling shutter of the FX1000 from last night is pretty bad. I found myself editing around it. That's when I knew it was bad.

Otherwise, this camera takes some VERY nice images. I do love it for it's good qualties, which are almost too numerous to mention.

I've heard it said the customers won't notice. I think it depends on your style of editing.

For highlight clips the rolling shutter is troublesome because the flashes occur at the very moments you focus on during such an edit. And even if the customers don't notice, it bothers the hell out of me.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

it bothers the hell out of me.[/QUOTE]


Wow! Thank god I don't do weddings anymore.

To be honest I am thinking the Panasonic if its a lighter camera may be better for weddings. Having to film all day knowing that those camera flashes are stuffing up the edit that will follow would do my head in.

Then again maybe not go for so much slow motion. Slow motion in my opinion is over done in weddings. I like to mix it up with some slow mo and some realtime mixing in the location sound.

mmmmm a big bugger though

And don't forget that any one of us here could be one of your customers Jeff. When my daughter gets married (please -- somebody, please) I'll see all these 1/3 and 2/3 frame flashes. Weddings are all about the couple being in the paparazzi spotlight and it's what makes them look special in my view. Coming down the aisle, cutting the cake, dancing together, it's flashes galore and all day long.

Slowed down they look even worse, and you're quite correct in that your style of editing has to change so as not to emphasise this CMOS foible. This bothers me too, as I do love to assemble a montage sequence at about 40% speed.

So I go against the 'customers won't notice' talk. They'll have to accept it, but that's another matter.

tom.

Martin, I never looked at the Panasonic very hard because of the ACVHD format but I wish I had. But I cannot forget all of the batteries. It would cost me upwards of $800 in batteries alone to have switched out brands.

And I think that's the most prudent thing you can do. Let's face it, doing slow motion when a flash is going off with a CCD camera, the image doesn't look to great either as the exposure goes to hell.

But I agree, there is so much slo mo these days it's almost a cliche.

You've got to put this in context Ken. We wedding filmmakers may well think there's too much slo-mo about, but look at it from the bride's POV. She's never in her life been filmed so well and made to look so good. She's most probably never seen proper fluid slo-mo of her self dancing, kissing, twirling, and she's certainly not seen such footage cut to the music that she loves.

tom.

Tom, that's true when you put it that way. But then you're forced to make the decision to go with a CCD-equipped cam that's not nearly as good in low light. You then risk a more grainy product which also detracts from the professionalism.

As I've said before, you pick your poison.

Rolling Shutter Banding and CMOS / HVR-Z5U
 

Hello,

I'm very new here, but I pored over everything I could find in these forums and on the 'net regarding problems with rolling shutter and the benefits of CMOS vs CCD (goes both ways, I know), and ultimately ended up buying the Z5 because in every other way, it was the camera of my dreams. I don't really have a plan, or a professional reason for having such a fancy camera (I've still barely scratched the surface of its capabilities--and mine), but I love to shoot, and I needed an upgrade from my collection of beat-up Sony DV and Hi8 camcorders.

I love the camera. It really can see in the dark! This camera has given me a lot to grow into, and the price for the XLR inputs and audio controls, not to mention the other pro features, is well worth it.

However, I have had a couple rolling shutter issues that were somewhat annoying, if not downright disturbing. One was a full-zoom close-up of some lovely yellow birds twittering away on a branch. Another of the same birds flew through the shot, and I could tell, even at normal speed, that there was something wrong. Maybe a non-videographer would not have noticed. This is beside the point. In slow-motion, I could see that the upper and lower edges of the fast-flying bird were truncated by the rolling shutter effect.

I was shooting in manual focus, auto-exposure, HDV 60i, by the way.

The other, more recent and more disturbing incident was during a lightning storm. We've been having these things roll over almost every day, and they afford lots of opportunities for some great image acquisition! I live as far out-of-the-way as you can get (relatively speaking) and my property is an old hydraulic mine and forest. My first HD 'project' is to document this place, its history, and its recovery (both mining and logging have devastated the land. At first when I saw the hydraulicked hills, I was aghast, but they are totally surreal, and in the right light, with the right sky, quite beautiful.

Needless to say, after shooting (on tape) for a good while, during a dry lightning storm, I finally got one that I saw on both the real sky and the LCD simultaneously. I was shooting in manual focus/exposure mode in HDV 60i. This particular single bolt with some forks that I did not notice until I got the footage onto the computer looked pretty OK the first time I saw it at normal speed, but then, knowing what I was looking for, I could see the banding effect. Bummer. When I tried to capture a still of the event, there was not a single frame to use, as the banding obliterates the image.

Now, I thought to myself, perhaps a higher shutter speed would do the trick. Arbitrarily, I tried 350. Well, after viewing what could have been an amazing moving image (the old mine glowing against tall green trees and forest in the late afternoon sun, with blue/black roiling clouds looming overhead, and a particularly close, large, and multi-pronged lightning attack just to the right of center frame), the banding was SO BAD that I could not even pretend it was OK.

I guess the next attempt will be at 24p? Or perhaps I should just reduce the shutter speed to 15? Experiments will ensue.

Long and short of it: I would definitely pay for this camera again. I love the low-light performance, and everything else looks really good. There is no ONE camera for every occasion, and if I get serious, or run into lots of extra money, I would buy a Z1 to use for the lightning. I don't otherwise shoot parties or weddings, or emergency vehicles, but square birds do not turn me on either. It is so infrequent, and the other attributes of the camera make up for it in this precarious balancing act....

Gene Cornelius

Gene, you hit the nail on the head! There is no one camera that can do everything 'better' than every other. But you've found a camera that works better for you than others in the vast majority of situations, and that's the best any of us can hope for.

I was out today, shooting a variety of scenes in an attempt to determine what to take on a cruise & land trip my wife and I are taking to Alaska this summer. I would have liked to have just taken my Sony XR500 since it's small, light and compact in addition to having great picture quality. But when I got home and compared the variety of shots I had taken, the Z5 was simply 'too much better' in a variety of scenes for me to not take the Z5 for a once in a lifetime trip. The exposure latitude, color and overall picture quality will force me to take the 'big boy'. :)

Good for you Ken. I would have taken the woosy way out and grabbed the smaller one.
Should be an awesome trip and hopefully you'll post some clips for us.

You needn't bother Gene (and welcome aboard, BTW). The rolling shutter is the way the CMOS chips are read - line by line - rather than as the CCD is read - by dumping its info all at once. So shooting at different shutter speeds and PS vs interlace won't make any difference I'm afraid.

But your best line is that you're delighted and would buy the camera again. My Z1 lives in a world of electronic flash, lightning forks, police vehicles so I too would buy it again.

tom.