Can't speak to the Z7, but the EX1 has been a big disappointment for me thus far. It only seems to produce excellent results for the web or for HD discs displayed on an HDTV and not a CRT unless you shoot interlaced. SD DVDs look good on an HDTV and really really bad on a CRT. Motion blur is a big issue as well as aliasing and other horrible artifacts. Downrezzing the footage if you shoot at 1080 has endless workarounds to get good results that work for one software and not another and that may work for web video, but not for SD DVD (the biggest problem apparently).
My VX2000 yielded far superior results for SD DVD played on both CRT and HDTV sets from any player with zero problems. There is also a problem with color fringing under too many conditions with the EX1. You also can't move the EX1 too fast or it really exaggerates the motion blur and increases the visual artifacts.

I haven't tried shooting in SD mode with the camera. Maybe that mode will result in good DVDs for CRT display. For my last dance recital I sold around 100 SD DVDs that came out perfectly. I used my VX2000. For the one before that I shot 1080/60i with the EX1 and produced around 70 SD DVDs that looked marginal in my opinion in terms of quality. I tried everything to get rid of the chromatic aberrations on the dancers from the stage lights, but nothing worked. So I delivered it. I didn't hear any complaints, but I was disappointed for sure.

John

You're not going to find a "SD mode" on the EX1/3, they don't have one.

"CoF"? Perhaps Cc (circle of confusion?).

Must comment that I've no problems with SD DVDs generated from EX1 HQ originals. I'm in 25fps world and use Cineform DIs in post, but do nothing special in writing to DVDs. No problems seen with interlaced CRT.

"the EX1 has been a big disappointment for me thus far ... Motion blur is a big issue as well as aliasing and other horrible artifacts."

There must be something whacked in your workflow. I haven't experienced any of the problems you describe. If you're that disappointed in your EX1, I'll trade you one of my low-mileage PD150s for it.

EX3 shoulder-mount recommended by Philip Bloom: http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/08/17/the-best-shoulder-mount-i-have-used-for-my-sony-ex3-by-far/. Not cheap (unless you have half the bits already).

Shooting on EX3 for SD DVD: It is generally recommended to shoot at 720p50 for easiest conversion. However beware the need to disable resampling in Vegas, else it looks blurred http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=657060

There must be something whacked in your workflow. I haven't experienced any of the problems you describe.

John,

What would you use for a Vegas 8.0c workflow for 1080/30p footage to create an SD DVD that plays well on a CRT TV? I am authoring with DVDA 5.0


Thanks,
John

Must comment that I've no problems with SD DVDs generated from EX1 HQ originals. I'm in 25fps world and use Cineform DIs in post, but do nothing special in writing to DVDs. No problems seen with interlaced CRT.

Serena,

-Are you shooting interlaced or progressive?

-Which Cineform program did you buy? Neo HD?

-Are you creating a Cineform avi first and then scaling with something else or are you scaling when you create the Cineform avi file?

-Is the Cineform avi file going back onto a Vegas timeline to create the Mpeg 2 file for DVDA?

Thanks,

John

"There must be something whacked in your workflow. I haven't experienced any of the problems you describe."

I could say the same thing but then again I've seen his footage and there are indeed some nasty problems. Keep in mind he is shooting under extreme lighting conditions (stage) and at the long end of the lens. There's plenty of other examples around of what looks like bad CA from the EX cameras. Except whatever it is it isn't exactly the same as typical CA, the shift is pretty constant across the frame and it's always the red that's shifted horizontally.

One difference between John's camera and mine is I have the B&W 486 IR cut filter on my camera and I'm wondering if the different refraction of the longer wavelength light is causing or contributing to the problem.

Bob.

John,
I'm shooting 25fps progressive, 1920 x 1080. Neo HD. Use HDLink to process to avi DI, no scaling. Yes, render for PAL in Vegas (for DVDA). Using Vegas 8c.

Thanks Serena,

John

"Can't speak to the Z7, but the EX1 has been a big disappointment for me thus far. It only seems to produce excellent results for the web or for HD discs displayed on an HDTV and not a CRT"

Uhm, not sure what you're doing differently but we've been shooting on the EX1 since it came out, and have delivered tons of footage on DVD and haven't experienced any weird problems like this. Motion blur is an issue if you're shooting 24p, but that's a factor of 24p period... if you're shooting 24p, deliver a 24p DVD and it will be what it is. We down-res in Vegas to DVD all the time and it looks great.

There is a small color-shift/CA on the EX1 at the longest end of the lens, it's a known problem. But we've shot hundreds of hours of footage on the EX1 and haven't seen any strange problems when making DVDs. We've shot a wide range of things including lots of live/stage performances and all looks great.

We shoot everything 24p, and deliver 24p DVDs... if you're not used to 24p, yes the motion blur can look odd at first. But now I look at footage shot at 60i and it looks funny to me...

The EX1 is not perfect, but I would think something in your workflow might be the problemm especially 'artifacts' not sure what you're experiencing there. Are you exporting MXF and then down-resing in Vegas? Or exporting as DV.AVI from the Clipbrowser? Or something else?

No camera is perfect, but I can't see any way a VX2000 could look better than the EX1, that makes no sense...

There is a small color-shift/CA on the EX1 at the longest end of the lens, it's a known problem
---
Are you simply not zooming in all the way to avoid this?
---
We shoot everything 24p, and deliver 24p DVDs... if you're not used to 24p, yes the motion blur can look odd at first. But now I look at footage shot at 60i and it looks funny to me...
---
How does the 24p dvd look on a CRT television when played with a standard DVD player?
---
I shot the last one at 1080/30p and the one before at 1080/60i. The problem is viewing the DVD on a CRT television. There is a small ghost outline on the edge on many objects and interlacing artifacts on both (especially the progressive footage)
---
Are you exporting MXF and then down-resing in Vegas? Or exporting as DV.AVI from the Clipbrowser? Or something else?
---
Exporting MXF. Importing into Vegas. Project properties match source footage. Have resized using Vegas and also Procoder and also Virtual Dub resize. The problem is always there on the final SD DVD when viewed on a CRT television. Have tried all three set deinterlace method settings. No difference. Smart Resample on or off - Not much difference.

I haven't exported as DVI from the Clip Browser in about a year. A year ago I tried this and it looked terrible. Is that what you do?

The VX2000 handles low light (for stage work) at least as well as the EX1. Since much detail is lost because of the funky lighting, the added theoretical benefit of the EX1's better imagers is thus cancelled out'

What is more pronounced are the chroma ghosts on the edges of the actors and dancers that are there with footage from the EX1 and NOT THERE from footage from the VX2000 and the inability of the EX1 to follow the fast motion I put the camera through for creative shooting of Dance performance. VX2000 has zero problems with this.

John

Yes, we just back the zoom off a bit and usually the issue is minimized... hook the camera up to an HD monitor and point it at something that causes the CA. When you back the zoom off a bit, you should notice it goes away. It only shows up at the long end of the zoom, but even at that it's often hard to notice even on an HD monitor (it all depends on the scene).

24p looks great on a CRT - the DVD player handles the 24p to 60i conversion.

The interlacing artifacts and the ghosting you are talking about is caused by the resolution of the EX1 image... it's the same issue that occurs if you take a high resolution still image, and shrink it to 720x480 - high contrast high detail scaled down will result in some 'jitter' as some of this detail sits between the interlaced lines on the CRT, and it simply can't resolve the information correctly.

We shoot 24p, export as MXF edit in Vegas. Then take the entire project and lay it into a 720x480 16:9 24p timeline, and render it out. At that point, you can select 'reduce interlace flicker" on the entire project to minimize the issues with resolving the HD footage on a CRT.

We've been doing this with HD/HDV for years to master 24p DVDs and it always looks great.

Not sure about export to DV AVI in ClipBrowser, we've done it once with version 2.5 just to dump footage to a DVD and it looked fine... but didn't check it in any detail.

What do you mean by 'inability to follow the fast motion I put the camera through?"

The bottom line is the EX1 is an HD camera, and like most HD cameras it's primary goal isn't to deliver SD...
Mike.

Yes, we just back the zoom off a bit and usually the issue is minimized... hook the camera up to an HD monitor and point it at something that causes the CA. When you back the zoom off a bit, you should notice it goes away. It only shows up at the long end of the zoom, but even at that it's often hard to notice even on an HD monitor (it all depends on the scene).
================
I don't see it until I play it from the timeline to a CRT monitor or when I create an SD DVD and play it through a CRT TV. I can't see it in the viewfinder or on the LCD screen when I shoot. In checking further, it isn't only present when fully zoomed either.
===================
At that point, you can select 'reduce interlace flicker" on the entire project to minimize the issues with resolving the HD footage on a CRT.
====================
Haven't tried that. Will try it - thanks.
=====================
What do you mean by 'inability to follow the fast motion I put the camera through?"
========================
For Dance recitals and High School Musicals SD DVD is what they want because very few of them have Blu-Ray and none ever ask.

I use Fast motion of the camera when I do things like whip the camera to small closeup sections of the dancers to the beat. The Ex1 cannot handle that, especially in funky or low light. The VX2000 handles it beautifully. As I said, by the time the interlacing artifacts appear after downrezzing the EX1 footage along with the ghosting the end result on an SD DVD of that type of shoot gives the edge to the quality of the SD DVDs from the VX2000 rather than the EX1 despite it's superior quality. If I were producing HD discs or HD web video (which isn't my market) it would be different.

John

If you only see this issue on a CRT monitor, it's obviuosly something in the conversion or down-res then, not the lens or the camera. If you are going to see CA or lens issues it will show up on an HD monitor... the CA issue on the longest end of the lens on the EX1 is a few pixels wide, when chopped down to 720x480 it would be nearly non-existent at that point... doesn't seem to make sense it would be worse on an SD CRT. But who knows, I'd have to see the footage first-hand...

Like I said - it's more than likely an issue of too much resolution to start, being squished into 720x480 and the information not being resolved properly.

But like anything, cameras are tools - and obiously in your case the VX2000 is the best tool you have for that job... I'd be curious what your experience is exporting to DV.AVI from the latest version of the Clipbrowser to see if that improves the situation for you at all.

From what I've heard the ex1 is a prototype and not worth the money at all. Doesn't it have a fan built into it? Imagine that breaking.

Most of the HD cams are hype for people who think more is better. The pictures they make fall apart in all sorts of ways that I won't even get started on. Rolling shutter is something I wish I never heard of but then again I am glad I did because it saved me a lot of money because I wasn't tricked in thinking HD Now can save my video company. SD at the broadcast level looks fantastic.

I'm always waiting to buy new cams but I still haven't because the dust is still settling.

My advice while we are stuck in this poor transition time is to rent a cam if HD is needed.

"From what I've heard the ex1 is a prototype and not worth the money at all. Doesn't it have a fan built into it? Imagine that breaking."

As opposed to what, a rotating head drum maybe or some other moving part on a tape-based camcorder? And where did you hear that the EX1 is a prototype?

"I'm always waiting to buy new cams but I still haven't because the dust is still settling."

I think what FishEyes is saying is that the sky is falling.

"SD at the broadcast level looks fantastic."

Clarification: the sky is falling on the planet on which he lives.

"From what I've heard the ex1 is a prototype and not worth the money at all. Doesn't it have a fan built into it? Imagine that breaking."

First I've heard of it...

"Most of the HD cams are hype for people who think more is better. "

I thought HD cameras were for people who, shockingly, wanted to shoot and deliver in HD? If you want to shoot and deliver footage that looks like SD, shoot SD. If you want to shoot something that looks better, more like film, and not like mid-90's video shoot HD. I actually had someone the other day tell me their BetaSP camera from 1992 looked better than footage they had seen from the EX1. I guess some people just don't deal with change well.

"The pictures they make fall apart in all sorts of ways that I won't even get started on. "

Huh... funny, I've got 2TB+ of EX1 footage sitting here on our edit suite... we've delivered TV commercials, SD DVDs, broadcast docs and countless web videos and haven't seen anything 'fall apart.' The biggest problem is people not knowing how to work with the footage properly.

I'm so tired of people wonkin' on about rolling shutter. It's there, it can be an issue, but it's not an EX1/3 exclusive problem... if it's got a CMOS chip, it has rolling shutter issues. Period. There are lots of work arounds, and frankly for the few times it's been a problem for us I'll gladly take the rest of the pluses over that one problem (which can be worked around in post anyway).

I never realized HD was a conspiracy... enjoy your stay in 1994, the rest of us will enjoy our time in 2009.

Mike.

Sensitive much...?

It's just my opinion. Relax. We all can't think exactly like you.

No need to come off like that. Rude.

However, "The lady doth protest too much"?

You can live with ROLLING SHUTTER and fix in post. lol

Have fun with long render time just so you can output to SD DVD. The joke is really on you.

FishEyes, since it appears that you have never even used an HD camera then you have no authority to speak about any alleged issues. With all due respect, you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Among other things, I shoot auto racing with CMOS HD cameras and I have NEVER seen the rolling shutter problem in any of my footage. It is only potentially a problem when you crank the shutter speed above about 250. Now, how often do you do that?

I produce HD for broadcast and Blu-ray. I've also spent the last four or five years shooting a lot of HD stock footage. SD no longer cuts it around here and hasn't for quite a while. I'd rather be ahead of the curve instead of way behind it like you.

Has anybody compared SD downrezzes from 1440x1080 and 1920x1080 HD source material. It seems to me like going from 1440 to 720 would be a simple divide by two downrez which might look better, but I don't know for sure.

Funny you should mention that Laurence. I was driving into the office today thinking about that very thing... it dawned on me that if you shot in 720 60p you might resolve some of the down rez 'issues' that crop up on a CRT (although - I have to say, I don't even worry about what things look like on a CRT anymore - we still use one to color grade, but otherwise that's it). At anyrate, I haven't tested this, but it would stand to reason that taking 1280x720 and dropping to 720x480 16:9 will have less interlace jitter and potential 'ringing' in your final image, since there will be less detail to try and resolve in the source image. Not sure how much of a difference it would make - but definately worth trying...

As I mentioned before - most of the problems people talk about is simply because you have too much detail in the source image and a CRT just can't properly resolve lines under a certain size - so it looks like 'artifacts' and noise.