That's been posted a couple times before. As a narrow-use plug-in, it better be outstanding for $500. Have you tried the demo? Stu Maschwitz (ProLost Blog) has tested it out and it only works with some rolling shutter clips and not others:

http://prolost.com/blog/2009/8/6/the-foundry-un-rolls-your-shutter.html

The problem is that any algorithm that is going to correct for the jello distortion is going to be fooled, if you have a lot of motion (not camera panning) in the shot. Most of the plug-in tests are of the camera panning a rather motionless scene. If that's what you are trying to do, you can just pan more slowly and reduce the rolling shutter effect.

Try as I may, I cannot get my CMOS camera to create the "jello distortion" effect.

I know a few other owners who have yet to experience this problem. I'm curious to know why.

It's not really a "problem' as such for me. Then again I don't shoot car chases that require set replacement in post.
If you simply want to see it setup a wide shot with the camera on sticks and give the sticks a kick. Instant jello, quite noticable when you go through it frame by frame.

Bob.

Up until CCD imaging chips became popular in the 80s, all TV cameras scanned one line at a time like CMOS chips and I don't remember anyone complaining about rolling shutter problems. I suppose that's because there were a lot of other issues with tube cameras that were far more serious.

That's a valid point and the readout time of the EX cameras at 1/60th would be pretty much the same as it took to scan a field in those tube cameras.
On the other hand no one was taking images from those tube cameras, compositing in CGI, doing motion tracking etc and showing the result on a cinema sized screen. The only valid concern I can see with CMOS based cameras that have this issue is for those doing compositing. For anything else the eye simply doesn't see it. It's there if you go looking for it but so what. In the example I gave of how one could see it even without the rolling shutter the shot will fall apart under compression with almost any content delivery system. The same goes for the red carpet flash problem. Try compressing those kinds of shots and the rolling shutter artifacts are the least of your worries.

Bob.

A friend of mine, Doug Jensen, shoots video professionally all over the world for the major networks. Using the EX1 and EX3, he has shot fast moving object such as birds and aircraft. Yet his shots do not display the jello effect, either.

This is most curious.

Fast moving objects will not display any jello effect!
Fast moving objects will skew. It's hard to see unless you look at discrete frames and line vertical edges up agains markers. There's heaps of example of this on the web from both still and video cameras. The amount of skew is entirely predictable once you know the readout time. Or on the other hand smarter men than me can calculate the readout time from the skew. If you've got motion control rigs it's even easier to do.


The so called "jello" effect occurs when the camera or subject moves very quickly from side to side. The image is moved left and then right accross the frame. In the case of the kicked tripod as the camera wobbles around from the vibration the image appears briefly to wobble like jelly.

Try the test, it's not hard to reproduce. Of course no one does this in the real world so it's pretty much only of academic interest.

Bob.

"Fast moving objects will not display any jello effect!"

True! But when panning with fast subjects--cars, planes, birds, etc.--wouldn't foreground and background objects, such as trees, poles, buildings, etc., become "jellofied"?

I cannot get the EX3 to do what is shown in the second video above when moved from side to side.

If you really want to see the deleterious effects of a rolling CMOS, try to run mercalli on a handheld shot with a lot of horizontal panning. It's horrendous!!

Hey, Bill! Long time no see. I thought you either died or moved off the planet. In any case, the end result is the same.

Regarding the jello effect, it is possible that my eyes simply don't see it in the viewfinder. But I see it in the other samples shown. I'll try again and dump the result into Vegas.

Also remember that it's the progressive modes that suffer the most.

Yes, I shoot exclusively in progressive.

Does using optical stabilization exaggerate the effect like Mercali does?

"Up until CCD imaging chips became popular in the 80s, all TV cameras scanned one line at a time like CMOS chips..."

I often wondered about this. But remember, most TV cameras were used in studios and most outdoor shots were shot on film cameras.

There wouldn't be a lot of rapid motion in a TV studio, so the problem would never really manifest itself.

I must admit that the skewing and compression from CMOS cameras has put me off buying a more expensive one. I can control it reasonably well on my HV20, but I'm wary of upgrading to an EX-. For now I'm happy with my FX-1.

"Does using optical stabilization exaggerate the effect like Mercali does? "

No, it would help avoid it as it works before the sensor.
Mercalli and the like don't make the effect worse, they remove the motion that would mask it from the eye.

Maybe others might have missed something I just realised. The video at the start of this thread is showing what happens with a cheap camera. No figure was mentioned but it was said it has a readout time the same as the frame rate. That's probably half the speed of the EX cameras so that demo footage is considerably worse than what you'll see with an EX camera.

Bob.

"That's probably half the speed of the EX cameras so that demo footage is considerably worse than what you'll see with an EX camera."

I had NEVER taken that into consideration. Now one can't help but wonder if some unscrupulous folks with an agenda have used such footage and ascribed it to the EX cameras.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe were they just assuming that ALL cameras did what theirs did?

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe were they just assuming that ALL cameras did what theirs did?

it would make sense: no different then if someone here says vegas is giving them major issues they assume it's something everybody else can repeat.

but the biggest difference between the cheap & not-so-cheap cameras obviously isn't the image sensor (which can be better in more expensive cameras, but it's the same tech), it's the extra stuff: manually shutter control, etc. Those "pro" features could very well help eliminate issues that cheap cameras have.

Well, wedding videographers routinely use slow motion regardless of the camera. Between slowing the EX footage down and watching all the jello and partially lit camera flashes, I can see where a high end CMOS camera would drive a guy doing weddings absolutely mad. FishEyes is a wedding videographer isn't he.

I'm not just picking on the EX1 either. My old Sony HVR-A1 and newer Sony Z7U both exhibit rolling shutter effects that you can see quite clearly when you slow the footage down.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39123560@N03/3747856514/

Shot with an EX3 at 1/60, 1080 30p. There was lots of it. But you know what? Nobody noticed it on the DVD except me. Go figure.

This thread is more dealing with the jello effect when panning quickly.

I'm a wedding videographer, and the rolling shutter issue is what made me go with a CCD camera (Panny HMC150). I deal with a TON of flashes at each gig, not just from the photographer, but all the guest's cameras.

But if I didn't shoot weddings, I could see buying a CMOS camera.

"Nobody noticed it on the DVD except me."

When I was a lad, out television - an old black and white portable - used to distort the picture in a most alarming way. But I thought that was how the picture was supposed to be.

When we had a colour television, I thought that cross colour and cross luminance were perfectly normal. Transient line gain, too.

Just because nobody has mentioned it, doesn't mean they haven't noticed it.