This is the latest video I’ve finished for the Guardian website. As per usual it is shot on a , but has a few cut away long shots by my assistant using the super little JVC HM-100 camcorder. As this was a live show and not set up especially for me I had to keep the rig mobile while running the camera was mounted on a small custom Redrockmicro rig with a 2 and a Fader ND filter for exposure control. A high shutter speed was chosen to try and get that ‘Saving Private Ryan effect’. Also in this case the depth of field was moderate, shooting about .6 of f8 most of the time so I was using the instead of a handycam mainly for its size, weight and wide angle lens coverage rather than shallow depth of field look.
In the action sequences the rolling shutter effect is clearly visible. This effect is demonstrated here by f-stop academy supremo Phil Bloom.
So my question is this, for news shooting does the audience really care that there is a bit of rolling shutter? this is not a feature film or a drama and so the audience expectation of quality is lower, they are used to seeing camera phone footage and bad DV on the news these days anyway. If I were shooting a feature like Slumdog Millionaire this would clearly be unacceptable, but I’m not.
I like many others complain about this a lot to the likes of Canon and Nikon, but the reality is for the type of work I am doing I don’t think the viewer cares. Your thoughts please?