OT: Do all CMOS cameras do rolling shutter effect?

riredale wrote on 6/27/2012, 11:18 AM
YouTube is full of demonstrations of the infamous rolling shutter effect, where any shaking of the camera produces a nauseating jello-like wiggling of the image. This is a byproduct of the CMOS imaging chip and the method used to pull the image data off the chip.

Are there any CMOS cameras with a global shutter technology, or ones where the effect is largely eliminated? One of the things I like about my trusty ol' FX-1 is the rock-stable image delivered by the three CCD chips.

Comments

paul_w wrote on 6/27/2012, 1:38 PM
As far as i am aware, all CMOS sensors have a certain amount of rolling shutter artifacts. The only difference is the processing speed at which the sensor can be read and processed. So more expensive cameras have faster processing and hence less rolling shutter issues. Cheaper designs tend to have more. Mobile phones being the worst. Although times are changing fast.
The mid to top of the range video cameras still have rolling shutter, its just so little that it becomes acceptable.
Thats the way i understand it.

Paul.
farss wrote on 6/27/2012, 3:57 PM
As Paul says above it's a product of the sensor readout time. The EX1's readout time is fairly short and doesn't suffer from the jellocam problem as much as other cameras. The F65 is offered with a mechnical shutter which reduces the effect.
The Digital Bolex uses a Kodak CCD sensor so no problem with it.
The question really comes down to how much do you intend to shake the camera keeping in mind that with correct shutter speed motion blur will largely mask the rolling shutter artifacts.

Bob.
malowz wrote on 6/27/2012, 5:13 PM
i recall a video explaining that there is CMOS with global shutter, but it cause the sensor to be much less sensitive to light if i remember, making unsuitable to video cameras.
vegemite wrote on 6/27/2012, 7:44 PM
The Panasonic AF-100/101/102 camera is largely free of this defect. This is because special attention was paid to the speed of scanning and some other factors. Moire pattening is also near non existant. In eighteen months of intensive use I have not suffered either of these pests!
Laurence wrote on 6/27/2012, 7:48 PM
All CMOS cameras have this effect, but it varies widely from camera model to camera model. It depends upon the scan speed. My HVR-Z7 can be made to look like jello if you really try, but I rarely run into any situation where I notice it. Many camera phones on the other hand have scan rates so slow you can't get a solid image.
Tech Diver wrote on 6/27/2012, 8:31 PM
Regardless of how little roll there is with a manufacturer's implementation of CMOS technology, it can easily be revealed by post production stabiliztion software. That is why I went with CCD technolgy and have a JVC GY-HM750 (shoulder mount) as well as a GY-HM150 (hand-held). Though they may not be as sensitive in low light as CMOS based cameras, the CCD ones are superior in my opinion.

Peter
riredale wrote on 6/28/2012, 10:28 AM
Which brings up another point.

I understand DeShaker has a feature where it can compensate for CMOS effects. Does it work? Has anyone put in a clip that had terrible rolling shutter and stabilized it to have CCD-like results?