Wow... Rolling shutter

Jeff Harper · January 3rd, 2009, 11:04 PM

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.

Ken Ross · January 4th, 2009, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

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. :)

Jeff Harper · January 4th, 2009, 10:58 AM

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.

Hans Ledel · January 4th, 2009, 11:51 AM

Panasonic HMC150. F1.6 - 3.

Ken Ross · January 4th, 2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans Ledel

Panasonic HMC150. F1.6 - 3.

I guess Jeff is sticking with the 1000. ;)

Hans Ledel · January 4th, 2009, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I guess Jeff is sticking with the 1000. ;)

Probably :-)

Jeff Harper · January 4th, 2009, 04:45 PM

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

Martin Duffy · January 4th, 2009, 07:07 PM

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.

Jeff Harper · January 4th, 2009, 07:34 PM

We'll be awaiting your report!

Jeff Harper · January 5th, 2009, 01:56 AM

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.

Martin Duffy · January 5th, 2009, 05:16 AM

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

Tom Hardwick · January 5th, 2009, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

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.

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.

Jeff Harper · January 5th, 2009, 06:18 AM

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.

Ken Ross · January 5th, 2009, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Duffy

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.

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.

Tom Hardwick · January 5th, 2009, 07:09 AM

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.

January 3rd, 2009, 11:04 PM	#61
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	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. Last edited by Jeff Harper; January 4th, 2009 at 05:31 AM.

January 4th, 2009, 11:51 AM	#64
Hans Ledel Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Stockholm Sweden Posts: 184	Panasonic HMC150. F1.6 - 3. __________________ Remember, that English is my second language.

January 4th, 2009, 04:45 PM	#67
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I'm sure my gyrations with these cams must be amusing to watch. Well at least I have a place to come and whine! Last edited by Jeff Harper; January 4th, 2009 at 07:32 PM.

January 4th, 2009, 07:07 PM	#68
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	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.

January 5th, 2009, 05:16 AM	#71
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 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

January 4th, 2009, 10:58 AM	#63
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	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.

January 4th, 2009, 07:34 PM	#69
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	We'll be awaiting your report!

January 5th, 2009, 01:56 AM	#70
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	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.

January 5th, 2009, 06:18 AM	#73
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	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.

January 5th, 2009, 07:09 AM	#75
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search