Is the EX the official HVX200 killer?

Alex Raskin · December 1st, 2007, 08:31 AM

Thomas, I don't have EX1.

I have V1U which is lower bitrate mpeg2 compression.

Fast pans or fast movement in-frame almost always produces very bad blockiness and image tears, which is unusable. Otherwise the camera is great, so I wish Sony used the fantastic Cineform codec instead of mpeg2 to record the video.

EX1, according to renowned reviewer Adam Wilt, also produces fast movement artifacts. This shatters my hopes that higher-bitrate 35Mps mpeg2 compression of EX1 would be radically better than V1U's.

Cineform however delivers every the time. I just don't see why not put it on-camera instead of mpeg2.

Steven Thomas · December 1st, 2007, 09:57 AM

We've all read his review....
He clearly states his saw a problem with "radically jumpy, earthquake-like shakycam work." Not under useable footage was there an issue. He also never stated that if he was using the 35mb codec.

Using 35mb, I've tried the "shake the camera to death" and all I saw was motion blur, no macroblocking whatsoever.

Also, Discovery HD would of NEVER approved the XDCAM 35mb for 100% acquisition.

Adam Reuter · December 1st, 2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Thomas

Also, Discovery HD would of NEVER approved the XDCAM 35mb for 100% acquisition.

According to this article they did approve the F350 for 100% acquisition:

http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=144

I'm not saying they approved the EX1 (its lens capabilities may be the limiting factor) but they at least found that the XDCam format holds up well for satellite broadcast. Perhaps Discovery HD has different specs in the states?

Steven Thomas · December 1st, 2007, 02:55 PM

Let me clarify what I wrote:
If it was not up to their standards, "Discovery HD would of NEVER approved the XDCAM 35mb for 100% acquisition"

Ali Husain · December 1st, 2007, 03:07 PM

at 35mbps/720p i definitely could not see any macroblocking. i didn't run enough wild, wavy footage at 1080p, but in the few seconds i had, i didn't see any in that mode either.

i had it aimed at a waterfall with dense contrasty, colored bushes in the background and waved it around. a similar test with the hv20 broke up the codec very consistently (i can't remember if i did that with the xh series cameras). xdcam at 35mbps is really very good.

the worst problem i have with this camera is the rolling shutter distortion, which makes the intentionally handheld-look footage hard to get without jelly-like warping. it also causes noticeable warping on changes of direction in tripod pans. as an aside, i also don't like the motion blur. the panasonics have a smoother, smudged look that i prefer.

i'm surprised there aren't more complaints about the rolling shutter because it's visible on most quick global motion, even without freezing the picture. forget lamposts bending or flashes crossing frames (lol), try panning left then right: at the point where the motion changes direction, the warping reverses and makes the distortion obvious in the moving footage.

to be fair, i saw an instance of distortion like that in the original red "crossing the line" movie at nab. a biplane aerial shot went up then down: squish. nobody else had pointed that out. maybe i'm just sensitive to it. motion blur to me looks natural because you can get that if you just move your eyes around, but--my brain at least--doesn't squish and unsquish the image when i move my eyes around.

the camera looks utterly fantastic though on static shots.

Ali Husain · December 1st, 2007, 03:32 PM

to be more fair this camera looks fantastic on a lot more than just static shots:

the rolling shutter distortion is only practically apparent AT THE POINT where the whole image is accelerating globally in one direction (the camera is beginning or ending a rotation, or translating up-down or sideways quickly), or where the image's global acceleration is changing direction on itself.

if the camera is in continuous motion and not accelerating, you won't notice it. if objects in the image are moving around, but the camera, the whole image isn't, you probably won't notice it.

my guess is that rolling shutters are here to stay and we'll just have to learn to shoot around them.

December 1st, 2007, 08:31 AM	#46
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Thomas, I don't have EX1. I have V1U which is lower bitrate mpeg2 compression. Fast pans or fast movement in-frame almost always produces very bad blockiness and image tears, which is unusable. Otherwise the camera is great, so I wish Sony used the fantastic Cineform codec instead of mpeg2 to record the video. EX1, according to renowned reviewer Adam Wilt, also produces fast movement artifacts. This shatters my hopes that higher-bitrate 35Mps mpeg2 compression of EX1 would be radically better than V1U's. Cineform however delivers every the time. I just don't see why not put it on-camera instead of mpeg2.

December 1st, 2007, 09:57 AM	#47
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	We've all read his review.... He clearly states his saw a problem with "radically jumpy, earthquake-like shakycam work." Not under useable footage was there an issue. He also never stated that if he was using the 35mb codec. Using 35mb, I've tried the "shake the camera to death" and all I saw was motion blur, no macroblocking whatsoever. Also, Discovery HD would of NEVER approved the XDCAM 35mb for 100% acquisition.

December 1st, 2007, 02:55 PM	#49
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Let me clarify what I wrote: If it was not up to their standards, "Discovery HD would of NEVER approved the XDCAM 35mb for 100% acquisition"

December 1st, 2007, 03:07 PM	#50
Ali Husain Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 141	at 35mbps/720p i definitely could not see any macroblocking. i didn't run enough wild, wavy footage at 1080p, but in the few seconds i had, i didn't see any in that mode either. i had it aimed at a waterfall with dense contrasty, colored bushes in the background and waved it around. a similar test with the hv20 broke up the codec very consistently (i can't remember if i did that with the xh series cameras). xdcam at 35mbps is really very good. the worst problem i have with this camera is the rolling shutter distortion, which makes the intentionally handheld-look footage hard to get without jelly-like warping. it also causes noticeable warping on changes of direction in tripod pans. as an aside, i also don't like the motion blur. the panasonics have a smoother, smudged look that i prefer. i'm surprised there aren't more complaints about the rolling shutter because it's visible on most quick global motion, even without freezing the picture. forget lamposts bending or flashes crossing frames (lol), try panning left then right: at the point where the motion changes direction, the warping reverses and makes the distortion obvious in the moving footage. to be fair, i saw an instance of distortion like that in the original red "crossing the line" movie at nab. a biplane aerial shot went up then down: squish. nobody else had pointed that out. maybe i'm just sensitive to it. motion blur to me looks natural because you can get that if you just move your eyes around, but--my brain at least--doesn't squish and unsquish the image when i move my eyes around. the camera looks utterly fantastic though on static shots.

December 1st, 2007, 03:32 PM	#51
Ali Husain Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 141	to be more fair this camera looks fantastic on a lot more than just static shots: the rolling shutter distortion is only practically apparent AT THE POINT where the whole image is accelerating globally in one direction (the camera is beginning or ending a rotation, or translating up-down or sideways quickly), or where the image's global acceleration is changing direction on itself. if the camera is in continuous motion and not accelerating, you won't notice it. if objects in the image are moving around, but the camera, the whole image isn't, you probably won't notice it. my guess is that rolling shutters are here to stay and we'll just have to learn to shoot around them.