Well, that's a reasonable test to me.
Thanks Paul.
It definately has wobble.

The soccer footage we shot did not really show any issues, at least not obvious . We were panning quickly using 720 60P. So I'm not worried.

For those who are, you may wish to look the other way until Sony offers another cam with these specs that does not have these artifacts to this extent.

Also, for those who tend to use their camera for 24P motion, fast hard pans are what's avoided in the first place.

I fired my camera up last night and tried some tests and really did not see anything bad. Maybe I did not pan it fast enough.
Since I would never keep these shots for display, panning the camera with earthquake movement and showing this type of artifact does not bother me.

And if I were intentionally going for this type of movement, It would be for effect anyways.

Thanks for that Paul.

i wonder what will happen in the real world, for example hand held, where you get the skew but also the jello effect up and down. think tracking motion out of a car or from an aerial shot.

I wonder if there's some combination of settings that is making it worse though. It seems pretty obvious and yet there are plenty of people who are quite loudly claiming no rolling shutter effects.

Maybe there is more at play here than the shutter speed (which i don't think should affect it anyway)

paul

I shot some car footage using fast pans and didn't notice it at all, it's only really going backwards and forwards that highlights it and I can't think why anyone would want to do that anyway unless your covering the latest table tennis world championships maybe!

Paul
Gun and run scenes could force that 'flaw' out. I think the point is that for many(perhaps most), it shouldn't matter since it takes extreme circumstances for it to manifest. However, letting people know about this issue (and the vignetting and whatever others) allows the readers to make informed choices.
Nothing could be worse than if someone buys a camera, shoots an entire production day and finds these problems in the dailies.
The flash/strobe disruption isn't isolated to macroblocking but it also induces partial exposure of at least 2 frames (depending on the strobe timing). One can edit out 1 frame without too much problem but 2 consecutive frames will affect playback.

You can see a vertical shift effect in the V/F on 2/3" broadcast CCD cameras if you pan them quickly. You also get strange tearing effects on computer screens when you pan, so it's an issue that been around in the CCD cameras.

If this is such a problem, how was Jody Eldred ever able to get decent footage from those planes at 10Gs?

You're right it's important to share information, but at the same time, also put it in respect to actual use.

Do you see these CMOS shutter problems while shooting or only when looking at footage afterwards?

G force alone won't be enough to induce wobble. You can pull 10Gs just by doing a straight up climb if your aircraft is capable. The 10G factor would kill a tape based camera as the the inertia would unspool the heads and cause drop outs. That's what Jody is attempting to show with that footage. The extreme conditions and g forces that the camera can endure without missing a beat.

-gb-

True, but if you watch the footage she sure takes some quick spins! that's for sure!

:)

seriously though, there's no way a non-crashing aircraft like that can accelerate the ex1 image as quickly as you can be rotating it in your hand.

If you are looking for wobble, it is not sustained acceleration but higher frequency vibration that will induce it. The speed and/or direction of the camera has to change at least once during the time the chips are being read. The Extra(?) with a large engine at high power and large control inputs will certainly not be free of vibration, but I was more impressed with the air to air footage from the back of the C130. No fisheye lens, and no sign of wobble.

Nick

Honestly, I can't imagine those rides are that smooth. Very nice.

Having been in a Pitts S2-A some years back as a passenger, I can say that it's smoother than a roller coaster. Just pure G-forces. The parachute on your back makes you sit somewhat more upright and the 5 point harness straps you down so well that you really become one with the aircraft and don't get thrown around like at your local amusement park.

-gb-

That may have started with me. I did note the "wobble" issue with an EX1.

Of course in order to create the effect I had to whip pan the camera back and forth so hard and fast that my wrist eventually made an audible crack that drew attention on the GV Expo show floor.

Before some wisecracker says anything, I was a pro hockey player (very minor league) and coach before I started my video/film career.

I just watched some of the vids posted by users here.

Those results are very different from what my tests revealed on the camera.

Here is the thing... I was testing and monitoring live via SDI. I was not able to test footage on the SxS cards.

That means that either:
1)I had a special super spec EX1
2)The problem is in the XDCAM codec (can't see why that would happen)
3)Some people have bad EX1s
4)I've lost my damn mind and have no clue what I am talking about.

All of these possibilities are worrisome to me, especially number 4.

I hope to test the EX1 again for an extended period this weekend, and should receive mine shortly thereafter.

Could we get more tests done for this on different cameras?

Alexander,
After seeing that utube video, last night I ran up and checked mine out.

Maybe I was not panning hard enough, but I tried it at 1080 24P and 720 60P and it looked OK to me. I saw nothing that was as bad as these examples.

I trust Paul's sample, I'm just not sure why I did not have as much error.
The utube is such poor quality I don't know what to expect from it.

I can see some on mine, but I can surely live with it, especially since I never plan on capturing rapid pan footage.

We captured some soccer stuff where we made a lot of camera moves and it looks great.