Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Hybrid Still/Movie/MP3 Digicams

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 15, 2008, 3:24 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

If you think that the rolling shutter effect is just a symptom of 'cheap' cameras like the Aiptek, think again. Even the more expensive CMOS cameras suffer from it. Here are a couple of examples from the more expensive Canon camcorders:

http://www.vimeo.com/819044
http://www.vimeo.com/920276

So if the rolling shutter effect is the only reason you are disliking the Aiptek then you'll just have to go CCD. Personally the rolling shutter effect doesn't bother me since I don't find it particularly noticeable in normal use.


rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 15, 2008, 6:55 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

Thanks for the links.

I am surprised by the *extent* of rolling shutter on such an expensive camcorder.

Interesting, indeed.

Private Idaho
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2008, 12:36 PM   #3
Member
 
Rodfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 71
Default

Ya I was really surprised when watching a review of the currently very popular Canon HF100. http://blip.tv/file/965832/

The image quality is fantastic but in one of the shots, he does a quick pan and it was very noticable.
Rodfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2008, 4:10 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 584
Default

Rodfather,
The files at that link are not from the HF100, they are recompressed. The HF100 puts out Transport Stream files, not MP4, and not MOV. Additionally, there are three data rates to which I can set my HF100, and comparisons are meaningless without being very, very, careful that you are comparing apples to apples.

I have never seen any tearing from my HF100 video, never ever, and I have been looking for it, as this was one reason I sent back my Sanyo HD1000 (occasional tearing between frames was due to the stabilizer algorithm, I think).

I am not going to inject myself into this argument, as it seems to be an argument, because I believe my two HV20s to be my best cameras, with the HF100 very close behind (lacking Zebra, inter alia). I have tried DXG, not Aiptek. I have an HD700 and I used an HD1000 for a month or so. There is no comparison in image quality with the HF100. Mind you, I am shooting at 24p, which takes a whole caboodle of post-processing expertise, and does essentially take care of the rolling shutter issue. Some don't like motion blur - OK- to each his own, but please don't use such a wide brush when criticizing top-notch equipment which is being used by professionals to earn real income:-)


Trevmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2008, 10:28 PM   #5
Member
 
Rodfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 71
Default

The filetype, encoding, tearing, or motion blur has nothing to do with rolling shutter. This is a CMOS problem. It's the wobbly effect from CMOS sensor scanning from top/down.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no argument. It happens.
I have no doubt the image quality is awesome on CMOS based Canon cameras. Just don't expect to stick one in a car or anything with a lot of vibration or you will get the rolling shutter effect.
There's give and take. CCD sensors have purple fringing, CMOS has rolling shutter. Whatever is less annoying to you is your choice.
Just look at this video..
http://vimeo.com/604275
Everyone says it's a cool effect but to me, it's freaking annoying and shouldn't happen on an expensive camera. Maybe in the future manufacturers will solve the problem with buffers or whatever, but for now, it's there.

I wasn't criticizing in the first place. I was pointing out a fact. Even then, there's no doubt I'm going to criticize a $600 camera that has the same problem as a $99 camera. Are you going to say the same thing to a race car driver who wants to shoot footage? It's no big deal because pros make money from shooting with these cameras? Come on.


Trevmar wrote:
Quote:
Rodfather,
The files at that link are not from the HF100, they are recompressed. The HF100 puts out Transport Stream files, not MP4, and not MOV. Additionally, there are three data rates to which I can set my HF100, and comparisons are meaningless without being very, very, careful that you are comparing apples to apples.

I have never seen any tearing from my HF100 video, never ever, and I have been looking for it, as this was one reason I sent back my Sanyo HD1000 (occasional tearing between frames was due to the stabilizer algorithm, I think).

I am not going to inject myself into this argument, as it seems to be an argument, because I believe my two HV20s to be my best cameras, with the HF100 very close behind (lacking Zebra, inter alia). I have tried DXG, not Aiptek. I have an HD700 and I used an HD1000 for a month or so. There is no comparison in image quality with the HF100. Mind you, I am shooting at 24p, which takes a whole caboodle of post-processing expertise, and does essentially take care of the rolling shutter issue. Some don't like motion blur - OK- to each his own, but please don't use such a wide brush when criticizing top-notch equipment which is being used by professionals to earn real income:-)

Rodfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 1:40 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 584
Default

Rodfather - intelligent use of motion blur supplies the answer, at least as far as I was taught. That is the primary difference between typical camcorder and film footage - intelligent use of the shutter speed to maximize perceptual smoothing of the image.

Maybe I will find time to set up Rev's spinning tire-spanner so you can see what I am talking about. Meanwhile, please take a careful look at using the lower shutter speeds on your cameras when taking HD video


Trevmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 3:33 AM   #7
Member
 
Rodfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 71
Default

Motion blur will gain the effect of going faster or smoothing the motion to compensate the reduced framerate and also because the sensor is exposed longer. That's why you see that in film since it's shot at 24p.

You will still have the wavy rolling shutter effect with CMOS video though. So you end up with blurry and wavy video. With CMOS camcorders, entire image isn't captured at a time like film or CCD camcorders.
This page explains it a lot better. http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/

If you watch Fishy's rolling shutter test ( http://vimeo.com/907086 ), the only footage the bar doesn't bend is with the Casio ex-v7 since it has a CCD sensor.

Definitely shooting at a higher framerate will reduce the effect as demonstrated with the A-HD+ at 60fps.

Basically comes down to this.. if you want to shoot fast action sports, go with high speed film or CCD. Otherwise, CMOS is fine.
If I'm watching a basketball game, I'd rather have a clean, fast framerate than blur.
It's just like if you're playing a first person shooter game.. would you rather play in 60fps or 24fps with motion blur?
This is why sports stations are broadcast at 720p, since the bandwidth can allow 60fps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p



Trevmar wrote:
Quote:
Rodfather - intelligent use of motion blur supplies the answer, at least as far as I was taught. That is the primary difference between typical camcorder and film footage - intelligent use of the shutter speed to maximize perceptual smoothing of the image.

Maybe I will find time to set up Rev's spinning tire-spanner so you can see what I am talking about. Meanwhile, please take a careful look at using the lower shutter speeds on your cameras when taking HD video

Rodfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 9:16 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 584
Default

I own CCD cameras (the Sanyo HD700 and C6, the Kodak V1073 and V1253) and CMOS (HD1000, HF-100 and HV20)

I know which make the better-looking DVDs...


(Hint - its not the HD700:-))
Trevmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 10:06 AM   #9
Member
 
Rodfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 71
Default

Does the topic say image quality? Why do you keep talking about subjects which has nothing to do what we're talking about? I give up. If you want to keep tooting your own horn about all the cameras you have, make another topic.:?

Trevmar wrote:
Quote:
I own CCD cameras (the Sanyo HD700 and C6, the Kodak V1073 and V1253) and CMOS (HD1000, HF-100 and HV20)

I know which make the better-looking DVDs...


(Hint - its not the HD700:-))
Rodfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 11:35 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 584
Default

Rodfather wrote:
Quote:
Ya I was really surprised when watching a review of the currently very popular Canon HF100. http://blip.tv/file/965832/

The image quality is fantastic but in one of the shots, he does a quick pan and it was very noticable.
My first post pointed out the errors in this observation, based on what you think you saw at the URL you posted. I pointed out that the AVCHD Transport Format had been converted prior to you watching the video. And I pointed out that a "quick pan," with the actual camera, produces no defects whatsoever.
But never mind, I am outta here.

Trevmar is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:11 AM.