The newly announced 7d to be sold in early october/late september has brought alot of commotion to the table, especially to 5d owners. The 7d is cheaper than the 5d counterpart and fixes some bugs such as 16bit audio vs the crappy 12bit in the 5d and also adds new framerates (60p,24p, and a real 29.976 codec). It has been almost 2 years since the red scarlet has been announced! Spec wise the 7d and 5d have much much larger sensors than the red scarlet and cheaper (most importantly). The complaints of the 7d not having a full frame sensor (for video) vs the 5d is absurd. Be happy that you can have a camera that offers so many shooting options, low light, shallow dof, etc for a fraction of prosumer hd cam. The 7d and 5d can destroy cams like the xh a1, hvx, hpx, ex1/3 etc. They have literally 7 times a bigger sensor! The 1.6 crop factor has riled people up vs the 5d's full frame. That much shallow dof in the 5d is a little ridiculous. Even real 35mm film cameras technically have a smaller image plane then the 5d. The fact is that the 7d has sensor that is just as big as the red one that sells for 15k. Same low light performance (if not better from the 7d) and shallow dof. Full frame becomes way too shallow sometimes. The scarlet has also riled people up with its ability to record 3k, amazing audio, and 120fps (180fps burst). I personally think there is way too much commotion over the scarlet it will probably suck in low light because squeezing 4k into a 2/3 chip will lower its low light sensitivity and it won't have really that much shallow dof (obviously more than xh a1, hv30, hfs100, hpx/hvx cam) but not that much cause its only 2x bigger the chip than most prosumer cams. The 7d on the other hand has a 2x bigger chip than the red scarlet, is cheaper, has been announced to be in stores at a specific date not up in the air, full manual control and different frame rates plus a canon ef mount (red scarlet mount is up in the air). OR you can have a canon 5d same as the 7d but no different frame rates (24p is usually a must for indie film makers), but it has a full frame 35mm sensors (yes bigger than the red one) for even better low light (not sure if the new Digic 5 from the 7d will improves iso sensitivity) and even shallower dof. So for 1.6-1.9k u can have the 7d which has an s35 sensor like the 15 thousand dollar red one, 24p, 30p, and 60p, u can have a 2.5k 5d mark II body which doesn't have 24 or 60p but a full frame sensor. Finally u can have the red scarlet which hasn't even been in production has a much much smaller 2/3 sensor (5d is more than 3 times bigger, 7d has twice as big sensor), 3k video, great manual control and much larger price that could vary from 3.5k to 8 or 9k? (with the red one, red announced its price at 10k and turned out to be 15k). I hope i don't sound redundant.

I say wait until the end of the month and see what Canon's getting ready to announce. I suspect it's a 7D sensor mated with a proper video body (XLH2) with proper I/0, audio, and data recording.

My only other advice is: Paragraph breaks, dude. Paragraph breaks. ;)

I'd like a combination of the 7D and the A1S, sort of ... And it would also be nice to see a 18-200/300mm? with a constant F4 Canon IS ring-type USM (constant MF override ability) lens for the 7D in the meantime for when there's plenty of light and not much time to change lenses.
And a fixed 13-15mm F1.4/F2 EF-S lens would be sweet, too.

Or even more, I'd like so see a 7D-type sensor and innards put in something that is shaped/sized sort of like the small JVC HM100 I briefly had, and still have interchangeable EF/EF-S lenses, and maybe a cheaper compact version with a built-in 14x-20x ... But with WAY better controls and IS than the otherwise nice HM100.

The Scarlet and Reds in general sound awesome if you are a hardcore, nicely-funded independent/commercial filmmaker who needs stellar image quality above all, but for most of us, especially those already in to EOS cameras and lenses (like me as pro photojournalist), the 7D is very affordable and good-enough image quality for many, many uses below BBC/Natl.Geog./Discovery HD channel level.

The fusion of DSLR tech into real, video-first camcorders would be very, very welcome development -- I bet it will be next year at the earliest (and yeah, probably XLH2-like at first), though, and we might see a SD/CF-based 1/3" 3-chip A1S replacement first.
But I'd rather see something that competes more with the smaller 35Mbps HM100, and maybe later the 1/2" EX1/EX3.

I'll chime in because this is pretty relevant to me.

I've got a JVC GY HD100 and am looking to upgrade. I was looking at the Scarlet but then found out about the D5 from watching some footage shot by Phil Bloom, specifically his stuff shot with the pre-release 7D.

I kind of couldn't believe it, so when one of our local camera houses got a D5 in I borrowed it for a morning and checked it out. I have no real experience with still cameras. That being said I couldn't believe the images I was getting from this thing...

Shallow depth of field, low light performance....I know, I know... but coming from a 1/3 sensor it was like YES!!!!!! I was looking at shelling out around $20,000 bucks for the Scarlet (35s with lens and all the chunks I'm guessing would be around that) but with the economy in the dumper I'm a little worried about spending that much dough.

The 7D, even with the work flow issues, sounds like an incredible camera for me. I figure I could put together a cine type rig (with the stuff I already have) for $2500 - $3000 bucks. This would let me get up to speed in the "shallow depth of field world" and when the Scarlet comes out I've got a great B-cam.

I'm interested in what Canon may announce but the 7D is looking pretty good...

Burk, you are a typical candidate for the 7D. It's definitely the best thing going in terms of inexpensive shallow depth of field HD video the day it is shipping. There won't be a better deal, as this camera pretty much does whatever frame rate you want (other than intervalometer frame steps, of course). On top of that, it's $1699 USD. Add a few f2.8 crop factor zoom lenses, and you're in pretty good shape for less than the cost of any equivalently capable camera.

But, don't let this camera fool you that you'll be up and running comfortably on day one.

You'll need to investigate and then purchase quite a few important accessories if you want to shoot video as well as you're used to shooting with the HD100. For one, the HD100 goes on your shoulder. And, it has a viewfinder for when you do that. And, it has XLR inputs. And, audio level control. And, the ability to roll more than 12-14 minutes on a clip. And a whole bunch of less critical things more readily than the 7D.

But, to get the depth of field with the HD100, you need to add some gear, and have enough light to do it in the first place. If those other two points matter to you as a creative filmmaker, the 7D might be just what the doctor ordered.

But if you can forgo that sort of performance, the hoops you have to jump through to get there might just be too many.

I hear you Eric.

My main gripe with 1/3 inch cams is the low light issue and the depth of field. I've looked at the Letus and Red Rock stuff but for what I want to do on some short film projects.... I just can't get their with my camera and that stuff. It's bad in marginal light as it is, I couldn't imagine trying to fight that with a Red Rock strapped to the front.

I know people have done incredible stuff with 1/3 inch cams and 35mm adapters. But I've also seen a bunch of horrible stuff and I guess I just don't want to have to mess with it. It's ironic that letus just came out with a relay lens for my camera. I think it costs $2700 bucks. I'm just not feeling that price point with the D7 coming out.

The D7 seems capable of capturing stunning images in incredibly low light. Throw in the 60p overcrank, cheap rental lenses and low price, I'm more than happy to shell out for a shoulder mount and one of those eye pieces for the viewfinder. In fact it seems that the D7 is stepping into a whole 3rd party gear wonderland that was inspired by the 5D mark II.

My only fear is that other local shooters will find out about this stuff :)

I say wait until the end of the month and see what Canon's getting ready to announce. I suspect it's a 7D sensor mated with a proper video body (XLH2) with proper I/0, audio, and data recording.

My only other advice is: Paragraph breaks, dude. Paragraph breaks. ;)

A 7D video specific sensor should be considerably better than what's in the 7D due greatly decreasing pixel count and enlarging pixels size: Even better low light, "jello" almost eliminated, and an AA filter that is specific to video.

But what does it look like? Canon doesn't make proper removable video lenses for that size. A 10x fix lens would need to be 2.8, and would be large and expensive. Is the IS in the camera or the lens? If it uses 35mm SLR glass, is the video division going to make bodies to sell the photo divisions glass? What does this larger form factor look like and how does it work ergonomically?

All the main video equipment makers look at major distruption of at least the low end of their pro lines. Do they want to start the new era? Does Red make them start the new era?

Canon strategy has been to follow with superior lower cost products. I don't know what they will do with leadership in this area.

It seems to me Canon is going to hit a big market with the 7D, just as they did with the 5D. I've always preferred bigger chips (having shot with 2/3" broadcast cameras for many years), though now I'm using an XH A1 and getting very good quality. The thing about the 7D vs. the Scarlet is that the 7D is here, or will be by the end of the month. And, to get the larger chip of the Scarlet 35s, when it exists, is $7K for just the body alone. With Red products, except the base yet-to-exist Scarlet that will, supposedly, sell for about $3K, you have to buy attachments to make it work just as you do with the 7D. My guess is the Scarlet 35s would set you back probably $10K at a minimum. Even at that price, it should be a great camera.

However, price is more important to most of us than it used to be, I think. To get big chip quality from a camera like the 7D at such a low price, I can put up with some operational issues, go back to shooting double system sound, etc. For the work I do, I'm not into the excessive use of shallow depth of field and don't want it on most shots. I do want it somewhat on some types of CUs when I feel it helps the shot. So it will be nice to have the ability to control that more than with smaller chip cameras. But the thing that I like about the camera is more centered around the clarity of the footage, the way it handles blacks and highlights, the latitude, etc.

The Scarlet 2/3" camera, when it comes out, will challenge the traditional 2/3" chip 3-chip cameras more than anything else. The last 2/3" chip camer I bought was a DSR500 back in 2000. It was $15K, and I used my old $9,000 Nikkor ED lens off a BVW300. An equivalent lens would have been around $15K more, so that was a $30,000 package. If the Scarlet can do the same thing for $10K or even $12-$15K, it will be a killer for people who use the traditional 2/3" chip cameras, in my opinion. But the 7D chip is still immensely bigger than a 2/3" chip and is going to give a significantly different look.

I say wait until the end of the month and see what Canon's getting ready to announce. I suspect it's a 7D sensor mated with a proper video body (XLH2) with proper I/0, audio, and data recording.



Totally agree here (except I think it will be called the XLHD). This is absolutely inevitable. Hopefully the announcement comes before too many buy the 7d thinking it's the ultimate video camera (it's still a DSLR), then gripe about how Canon screwed them over.

I AGREE. It will be inevitable, but its gonna take about 3-4yrs for that to happen. One of the very few good things from 1/3' cams (not trying to say that 1/3' cams are BAD they are more than usuable) is that they have a very long zoom range. So ppl will want that xl h2 with the same zoom range as its successors. Plus zn xl h2 will probably cost 6k when it comes out vs the 2k of the 7d and 3k of the 5d mark II.

I'm going to hazard a guess that Canon will come out with a 2/3" chip "real" video camera next, and it will be tapeless. Closer to the Scarlet type. I think it'll be awhile before they put a big chip in one. But that's just a guess.

My only other advice is: Paragraph breaks, dude. Paragraph breaks. ;)

That was funny - you said what I thought...

I think waiting is a great option.

Here is a funny thought - some people are mad because the 7D seems better yet cheaper. Does this mean they would rather pay more or have less features? If so, I have the perfect solution - send Canon more money and/or put super glue on some of the buttons so you can't use them. -- :)

Or if this sounds stupid - stop complaining and wait for what you want. Of course this means missed opportunity but you will eventually get what you want.

I think it's always best to buy when you have a need, put it to use, make money with it (hopefully), or just make awesome things. Waiting around for the next best thing will always leave you questioning whether "now" is the right time to purchase. Everything becomes obsolete so just buy when you have a need.

FWIW, I really think it will be some time (at least a year) before we see companies like Sony or Canon releasing sub-10K cameras with S35mm sized chips in more "traditional" form factor video cams.

Well said. If you need it, get it. If it doesn't fit your needs, get something else. But, if you look at recent video history for the past dozen or so years, the idea that one camera will appear and R&D will stop there is folly. There will always be something new. If Canon suddenly hit the market with a traditional video camera that has a 35mm size chip, that doesn't make what you have any worse. That motion picture film size chip in the 7D or the still photo size 35mm chip in the 5D MKII are not going to suddenly become unuseable because somebody makes a non-hybrid video camera with the same chip. The "real" video camera would be more user friendly and might shoot longer takes, but you can still do what you do with the hybrid.

Or if this sounds stupid - stop complaining and wait for what you want. Of course this means missed opportunity but you will eventually get what you want.

Or buy both:) The 7D is that cheap that it shouldn't dent anyone's pocket who is in the market for a Scarlet.

some people are mad because the 7D seems better yet cheaper.

Well.. the 5D is still superior in terms of still photography - and that's what these cameras are primarily meant for.

I don't know if Canon is releasing a video-type device at the end of the month. It would be great if they did, but we just have to wait and see. All the hype about Apple's tablet forever and media events have come and gone and nothing. Canon is definitely working on it (XLHD or whatever) cause they would be stupid not to.

For me, getting the 7D for my shooting needs now will work and I won't gripe about a video cam if that's what Canon does in fact release. I can replace my 40D and shoot some great-looking videos in the meantime. You know this video camera, when it comes out, will have to be in the $3k-4k range (as a Scarlet match), and then another in the $8k range with pro io (replacing their own line and matching Sony). So $1700 now for a hybrid isn't much right now.

Oh, I don't expect the Scarlet anytime soon. Jim keeps dropping hints that this Epic will be released before anything, and then that's the package for the Red 1 people anyways. That's just what I gather from keeping on top of all the news for years.

Well, here's the thing - first it was 'look at all the 5D's weaknesses, it's not a pro camera, it won't even come close to Scarlet'. Then we got the firmware update and it came a step closer - but still had enough flaws that it couldn't really compare to Scarlet. Now we've got the 7D and it's another step closer - but of course its still got several flaws that mean it can't compete with Scarlet. Next we'll probably get the 1DmkIV which will close the gap a little more, but of course it won't be perfect so it won't be able to compete with Scarlet. Maybe we'll get a video specific camera based on one of these sensors soon, or we might even see the rumored RAW module from Canon for all these cameras, each of which will get us a little closer to Scarlet.

Of course, Scarlet does have that one flaw which seems to be overlooked so often in these comparison discussions - it doesn't exist. And the way things are going, by the time it does Canon will have iterated their large sensor video cameras to the point that much of Scarlet's advantage will have been eliminated, and no one will even care how it compares to the 5D or 7D because they'll be 2 or 3 generations old by then.

Sure the scarlet may have awesome controls, but when it boils down to price and quality the 5d and 7d probably will be better. One, the 5d and 7d will have alot shallower dof than the scarlet. Two, they'll be much cheaper, three the 5d and 7d will have alot better low light cause of their larger sensors plus because the scarlet is shooting 4k using a much smaller 2/3' sensor that will lower its sensitivity. The one thing that might make the scarlet alot better is its codec.

The one thing that might make the scarlet alot better is its codec.

That one thing is a big thing, though.

Keep in mind that the Scarlet, on paper, could be 2/3" all the way up full-frame 35mm, depending on the brain you choose, so in fact it could have the same size sensor as the 7D or 5D.

Unless you get the Scarlet FF35 ($10k), you will be getting a smaller sensor than the 5D (or even the 7D if talking about either of the 2/3" options). In fact, Red can't touch Canon at the 7D's price point. At the time, $4k sounded great for a kit with a Scarlet fixed lens. But it's only 2/3"? Maybe the codec is the key, but do people in that range need to key or do tricky compositing?

I don't know that H.264 will kill me right now as I'm mainly concerned with the footage. If I need to do any keying, then I'll see how the 7D stands up (has anyone keyed 7D footage?), but will probably rent a better camera for the job.

Keep in mind that the Scarlet, on paper, could be 2/3" all the way up full-frame 35mm, depending on the brain you choose, so in fact it could have the same size sensor as the 7D or 5D.

Keep in mind that the Scarlet can be anything you want it to be, on paper; The 5D and 7D are unfortunately limited by the constraints of reality.

Maybe the codec is the key, but do people in that range need to key or do tricky compositing?

It's not just for keying or tricky compositing - having raw data to work with is actually a big deal even just for normal color correction. But, again, actually having any file to work with right now is better than having a theoretically perfect file to work with at some indeterminate time in the future.

[QUOTE=Evan Donn;1379082
It's not just for keying or tricky compositing - having raw data to work with is actually a big deal even just for normal color correction. But, again, actually having any file to work with right now is better than having a theoretically perfect file to work with at some indeterminate time in the future.[/QUOTE]

Yep, couldn't agree more. H264 is a terrible codec for acquisition and I'm looking forward to shooting RAW, just like my stills. That's not to say I won't continue to shoot a few things on the hybrid DSLRs in meantime.

Unless you get the Scarlet FF35 ($10k), you will be getting a smaller sensor than the 5D (or even the 7D if talking about either of the 2/3" options). In fact, Red can't touch Canon at the 7D's price point. At the time, $4k sounded great for a kit with a Scarlet fixed lens. But it's only 2/3"? Maybe the codec is the key, but do people in that range need to key or do tricky compositing?

I don't know that H.264 will kill me right now as I'm mainly concerned with the footage. If I need to do any keying, then I'll see how the 7D stands up (has anyone keyed 7D footage?), but will probably rent a better camera for the job.

If you're worried about keying, a sensor size with a larger depth of field would make more sense. A number of high end productions have selected 2/3" cameras for this reason. The last two Star Wars films used 2/3" cameras. The Scarlet has other advantages like high frame rates and using a codec which is now beginning to getting established with the work flows being ironed out.

I say wait until the end of the month and see what Canon's getting ready to announce. I suspect it's a 7D sensor mated with a proper video body (XLH2) with proper I/0, audio, and data recording.

Did they say they were going to announce something this month? Where did you get this info? I really hope what you say is true because that's the camera I want.

These DSLR camera's are nice when you don't have to shoot audio and can live with the 8 minute clip limit. For documentary work they are not suited.

Canon's problem is software. The further they get from precisely spec'd firmware functions, the worse they get. I'm sure Canon can do a high end compressed raw and dump it out of the camera. But then what?

As far as 2/3 Scarlet, noise performance will be an issue. I think in one year, if scarlet can be purchased with a one month wait red will be doing well. But I also expect the Japaneses companies won't get why people want more than 1080p, so they will fail to exploit Reds lack of manufacturing muscle.

Somebody said above that H.264 is a "terrible codec." Why is that? Has anybody tried keying with it? I know people said the same thing about HDV when it first came out, but I've never had any trouble keying it, as long as the lighting is done right. What specifically about H.264 is bad?

Canon's problem is software. The further they get from precisely spec'd firmware functions, the worse they get. I'm sure Canon can do a high end compressed raw and dump it out of the camera. But then what?

As far as 2/3 Scarlet, noise performance will be an issue. I think in one year, if scarlet can be purchased with a one month wait red will be doing well. But I also expect the Japaneses companies won't get why people want more than 1080p, so they will fail to exploit Reds lack of manufacturing muscle.

Until the camera comes out I don't think anyone is in position to say if noise will be an issue. The RED One has noise issues under certain circumstances, but until the new sensor being used in the 2/3" Scarlet has been tested in the field no one outside RED can say how noisy it actually is in practise.

The market for anything larger than 1080p is small, so why would a mass market manufacturer invest any money into a specialised product?

"the release dates for EPIC and Scarlet will be announced in October -- which doesn't leave much time for a 2009 debut for the cameras themselves."

from Red And Scarlet -- Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/tag/red,scarlet)

Somebody said above that H.264 is a "terrible codec." Why is that? Has anybody tried keying with it? I know people said the same thing about HDV when it first came out, but I've never had any trouble keying it, as long as the lighting is done right. What specifically about H.264 is bad?

For professional use, H264 is a great delivery format, but if you're talking about H264 as an acquisition format, "terrible" is a pretty accurate description. Canon captures with only 8bit color with 4:2:0 sub-sampling, and a very low bit rate. So the color space sucks. Plus, the compression introduces a lot of artifacts like aliasing, false detail, and banding.

Many of these are less noticeable in low DOF shooting, but when everything is sharp, the poor quality is more apparent.

Check out the full res video test, looks like a cheap camcorder:
Canon EOS 7D Hands-on Preview: 14. Samples: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/page14.asp)

Hopefully they will move to a better codec soon.

Increased resolution and therefore more detail in spectacular scenes was main reason that people have traditionally shot with 65mm and Vista Vision cameras, it wasn't for the shallow DOF effect. Having to use this effect in order to reduce detail is a limitation that the film maker has to bear in mind, but they're missing out on the major reason why you'd shoot on a larger format camera in the first place.

You have to decide if the current DSLR cameras are appropriate for the story you're trying to tell. Unfortunately, the lower the price of the camera the more compromises are usually built in, especially if it's also aiming at two markets. The RED brain seems to be a major cost factor and that could be the limitation for the stills cameras going for a higher quality film making product.

Honestly, the codec isn't the biggest problem with the camera. I've done perfect keys with the 5D, after converting the H.264 to ProRes. And the bitrate is not low for H.264. As a matter of fact, it's quite high. H.264 is a low bitrate codec by its nature. The problems in the footage generally do not occur because of the compression. Aliasing typically occurs due to the way the cameras (5D Mk II and 7D) "bin" pixels in the downsample from the full image coming off the sensor. That's going to exist no matter what codec the camera uses.

Other issues have often been attributed to using non-UDMA compact flash media. Canon's Tim Smith explicitly said back in July that they have seen this kind of an issue with the 5D in testing. Banding in high detail areas can be attributed to the codec being instructed to drop the rate to accommodate slower cards. The bitrate is variable in the camera, and it will respond accordingly if you are cheaping out on your media. Because I have exclusively used UDMA media, I've never seen such banding or any quality issue that I can't attribute to the binning problem.

This is sort of "deja vu all over again." When HDV cameras came out everybody said the codec was horrible and you couldn't key it and there were artifacts. Yet people have made feature films with it, keyed it, and shot without noticeable problems. I do it all the time. It's not as easy to work with as some codecs and you can't screw up and expect to fix it with Color--you can tweak it a bit but there are strict limits on how far.

I'm not saying the 7D or 5DMKII are perfect cameras; they have limitations we have to work around, just as HDV does. But work within them and we can get great looking footage. It's not going to be as good as a Red that costs way more, but you can intercut it with Red or most other cameras, if you shoot it well, and not have any problems. One person on this board has even shot Steadicam footage with a 5D that intercuts with 35mm film on a production, and no doubt others have done similir things. There's always a better camera and always one that'll look better, but that doesn't diminish the one you have.

Very well said. I think sometimes these discussions, while useful knowledge, can be a downer.

There's always a better camera and always one that'll look better, but that doesn't diminish the one you have.I should probably take this statement and put it in bold text across the top of every single page on this site. And that "better camera" not only doesn't diminish the one you have, it doesn't diminish the potential of what you can do with the one you have. It doesn't diminish the fact that image quality is affected by human factors more than anything else.

On a more positive note...
With this camera you can do preproduction with the same lenses you will shoot with.
(Site scouting, storyboarding...). David Mullen uses a DSLR and comic book software to do his storyboards.

I personally think there is way too much commotion over the scarlet it will probably suck in low light because squeezing 4k into a 2/3 chip will lower its low light sensitivity...

Smaller pixels do not mean worse low light sensitivity. The 7D pixels have over two and half times less area than the 5D2 pixels, yet the performance per area is the exact same. (The reason for this is that Canon scaled read noise with pixel pitch, so that 7D has 1.7 e- read noise and 5D2 has 2.6 e-. After scaling for spatial resolution, both come out to the same 2.6 e- per square micron.)

I think that can be a problem with how RED market their products. They announce them at a relatively early stage of their development, which something most manufacturers don't do. Indeed some well known manufacturers are incredibly secretive (and I don't mean Sony), so you only hear about the products when they're about to be sold in the very near future. The only industry that I know works in a similar way to RED is aerospace, when you often hear about products long before they've even flown and then add years before delivery.

The time scale for the Scarlet's development seems to be about normal for these types of product. The best thing is to buy (or rent) what is available when you need it, otherwise you'll be for ever waiting for the next best thing.

Somebody said above that H.264 is a "terrible codec." Why is that? What specifically about H.264 is bad?
Hoo boy.

Okay, well, let's start at the beginning -- h.264 is the most advanced codec out there right now. It is the most efficient, operating at 2 to 2.5 times the efficiency of MPEG-2. It's very processor-intensive, it's a very complex codec. According to Sony, 9 megabits of AVCHD matches the visual quality of 25 megabits of MPEG-2 HDV.

But -- before we get into the whole "what's bad about h.264", let's first spell out that there are a bazillion different profiles and levels and implementations of h.264, and they are most decidedly not equal. So you can have AVCHD, which is long-GoP 4:2:0 8-bit h.264, or you can have AVC-Intra, which is intraframe, 4:2:2, 10-bit h.264. Or, you can have the kind of h.264 which is in the 7D, 5D, and GH1, which is the weakest of all the h.264 implementations.

There is a large toolbox of available options for h.264 developers to use, and depending on how many of these tools are employed, that changes the performance of the codec significantly. Hugely. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the very best high-definition video codec out there (AVC-Intra) and the very worst high-definition video codec out there (GH1's AVCHD) are both h.264! The best, and the worst, are both h.264.

So -- the point is, you cannot, should not, and must not lump all h.264 together. You have to know what it is you're talking about when the term h.264 is bandied about. AVC-Intra is the best-quality implementation out there, it's the main codec the BBC chose to use to archive all its footage under their Digital Media Initiative. It's good stuff. And in the middle of the spectrum you've got (what I call) "real" AVCHD, such as is found in the HMC150. That's a long-GoP 8-bit 4:2:0 implementation, with an IBP GoP structure, which performs on par or better than XDCAM-EX.

But then, at the bottom, you've got the half-implemented h.264 versions. Those are what the 5D/7D and the GH1 use. In those versions we're also talking about long-GoP and 8-bit and 4:2:0, but the GoP structure is not IBP, it's IPP. Meaning, there are no B-frames. And that's a major huge quality hit. Much of h.264's power and efficiency come from the B-frames, which allow it to predict a frame based on up to five surrounding frames. But the GH1, 5D & 7D don't have B-frames, they have only an intraframe (I frame) at the beginning of the Group of Pictures, and then all P frames afterwards. So in "proper" AVCHD, your GoP might look like IBBBPBBBPBBBPBBB. Heavily reliance on the B frames is what gives it its incredible efficiency. But in the GH1 or 7D, the GoP looks like IPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP. It's weak. It's handicapped. It's not a "full" implementation.

Now, the GH1 suffers more than the Canons do in this regard because the GH1's maximum bitrate is 17mbps, whereas the 5D goes to about 40mbps and the 7D goes to somewhere around 48mbps. They attempt to make up for the inefficiency by throwing bandwidth at the problem. And it helps, but... I can't help but think that the net result isn't really any better than we would have gotten out of HDV, as far as compression efficiency goes (excepting, of course, that all these flavors of h.264 are recording full-raster 1920x1080).

So -- what about h.264 is "bad"? Not a thing, if it's fully implemented. Full h.264 is the best video codec going. Fully implemented AVCHD is the best long-GoP codec going (in 4:2:0; XDCAM MPEG422 is the best long-GoP codec out there AFAIK). But a bad implementation of AVCHD or h.264, such as the GH1 uses, can cause serious artifacts and loss of detail in the picture. It can be stellar, or it can bite you.

As far as keying goes, the codec is only one part of the equation; what the camera head delivers to the codec is equally or even more important. The SLRs do some weird and funky things when scaling their huge chips down to HD-sized frames, and the 7D and 5D in particular produce a very high level of chroma moire on fine detail. It's the kind of thing that could make a chroma key difficult to pull; it won't always happen, but it'll happen on areas of fine detail with a repeating pattern (so certain fabrics, like maybe a knit shirt or a tweed suit, might cause chroma moire which would seriously impact the ability to pull clean edges).

In the end summation, about h.264 as an acquisition codec -- I don't think long-GoP is the best idea for acquisition; long-GoP is optimized for delivery. Long-GoP works great as a delivery codec, where the compression engineer can optimize the footage and use massive horsepower to run multiple passes and really squeeze amazing performance out of low bandwidth. But as an acquisition codec, you're at the mercy of the power of the camera's built-in encoder. And on a low-cost camera like the 7D, 5D, or GH1, it's not likely that they're going to have the most powerful chips in there, so you might end up with (and, in the case of these three products, you DO end up with) mediocre quality from the h.264 format. Even though h.264 can be the best and most advanced format out there, it all depends on the particular implementation of it.

Barry:

I will put that post in my primer notes on this stuff. A great general explanation of a topic that has been all mysterious to me.

So, all that said, why are guys like Phil Bloom and other pros all so happy with the images they are getting out this camera, over our prior camera-- in my case, the the FX1 and HV20-- and others over the HVX200 ? As far as a pleasing image in general, despite the codec's limitations, I think camera can overcome some of the things you mention.

If you "fix" the image into an intermediate format for editing, and shoot at lowest sharpening settings, and keep the image on the flat side, do you not help the situation ?

Barry,

You can't request Intraframe, and bemone the fact that DSLRs don't use B-frames.

The thing about high-end h.264 implementations is that they can have very high compression ratios, but they are computation intensive. DSLRs need to run for hours on a small battery. Using a simple implementation and high bitrate is the most effective solution.

Long GOP is fine for acquisition. But it stinks for editing. So we transcode. This has little to do with quality. It's a workflow thing.

The real limitations are 4:2:0 and 8-bits. Nail those exposures, people!

(and, in the case of these three products, you DO end up with) mediocre quality from the h.264 format.
"Mediocre quality from the h.264 format" suggests that the footage shows codec-related issues so severe they make the image quality "mediocre".
Please show me a piece of original, ungraded 5D/7D footage (the GH1 is off-topic - see thread title) that shows these codec-related issues.

It's weak. It's handicapped. It's not a "full" implementation.

That doesn't make ANY sense. With a high enough bitrate, those b-frames are pointless. The entire reason to use b-frames is to get the bitrate low enough and for it to still look good. That's why AVC-Intra is only keyframes. It doesn't make sense to praise AVC-Intra as the best codec in existence (It's just the I-frames) and then say that the coding mechanism in the 7D is bad because it doesn't have b-frames.

The less motion estimation there is, the better the image. That's why they don't use b-frames when the bitrate is high enough. That's why AVC-Intra is only keyframes.

"Mediocre quality from the h.264 format" suggests that the footage shows codec-related issues so severe they make the image quality "mediocre".
Please show me a piece of original, ungraded 5D/7D footage (the GH1 is off-topic - see thread title) that shows these codec-related issues.

Download the raw video midway down the page:
Canon EOS 7D Hands-on Preview: 14. Samples: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/page14.asp)

Every frame of 5D/7D footage is full of codec related issues.
Whether people have the eye to see it is a different question.

It probably depends on the quality people are used to looking at. Any colorist would call the footage complete garbage from a technical point of view.

It's better than an HV30, but not as good as a prosumer camera like the HVX. But the HVX wont do shallow DOF without an adapter, to there's a trade-off.

Every frame of 5D/7D footage is full of codec related issues. Whether people have the eye to see it is a different question.

I agree that the particular clip you linked to is not the greatest piece of cinema, but can you say exactly what the "codec" issues are that you see in every frame of 5D/7D footage?

Are you saying these issues are things that prosumer cameras do not suffer from?

Am I also detecting a Panasonic vs the rest of the world subtext to this thread? I don't know if we're descending dangerously close to an unquantified "favourite brand" mud-slinging match?

Download the raw video midway down the page:
Canon EOS 7D Hands-on Preview: 14. Samples: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/page14.asp)

Every frame of 5D/7D footage is full of codec related issues.
Such as? I don't see blocking or codec-induced "crawlies" in any of the motion or anywhere else. And it's not the codec's fault that the highlights are clipping.

I think you're going to have to point out at least one codec-related issue on a screengrab because I don't see any. Does anyone?

P.S.: Several frames blur out significantly because the camera is shaking. Nothing to do with the codec there either.

This discussion is "deja vu all over again." When professional HDV cameras came out, people trashed the codec, yet it's used by thousands quite successfully and even on the big screen. It is true that you can't push it as much as some other codecs--which means you have to be professional in your exposure and white balancing; you can't be sloppy as you can with different codecs. Presumably H.264 will be similar. In the hands of people who know what they're doing, it will be fine. You under or over expose something, you can't do as much correction as you can with something else.

I don't really think you can compare these things on the web. You can get all sorts of artefacts from the distribution network that have nothing to do with the original material.

My experience is that fine moving objects like leaves and grass tend to throw things with the codecs.

Regarding the 5DII on the big screen, the comments I've read on the BSC evaluation varied between "interesting" and "awful", it was the EX3 that impressed. Perhaps that was early days and there has been the objection was that the camera was used straight out of the box, so possibly the jury is still out in that regard. Although, the resolution figures referred to in another thread do tend to suggest that big screen detail won't be its forte.

I don't really think you can compare these things on the web. You can get all sorts of artefacts from the distribution network that have nothing to do with the original material.
The link that was provided appears to be an original .MOV file straight out of the 7D, so I don't object to using this to judge the quality of the codec.

Although, the resolution figures referred to in another thread do tend to suggest that big screen detail won't be its forte.
Do you have a link? While aliasing is my big (and only major) caveat with the 5D, I was very surprised to find that properly focused clips contain a ton of detail.
What I did was extract screengrabs from various videos I shot. Then I scaled these down to DVD resolution and scaled them back up. There was a massive difference, no huge surprise there.
But when I scaled them down to 720p and back up to 1080p, I still noticed a difference in detail. So I concluded that it must resolve more than 720p. Probably not a true 1080p but if it's somewhere between 720p and 1080p then that's a pretty good result I'd say.

While aliasing is my big (and only major) caveat with the 5D, I was very surprised to find that properly focused clips contain a ton of detail.


If you consider aliasing to be detail, then you're right, the 5D2 clips do contain a ton of "detail".

But if you don't consider aliasing to be a valid part of "detail", then the story comes out much differently. For example, in a normal 1080p camera, you can measure the resolution in the form of line pairs per picture height (lp/PH), from 1 lp/PH on up. At some point, you will start to see aliasing. In my ideal 1080p camera, it will go all the way to 360 lp/PH with no aliasing at all. On other cameras, aliasing starts at around 300 lp/PH. On the 5D2, the aliasing starts at a *very* low resolution. I haven't measured it but I'd guess under 200 lp/PH.

Almost any camera blows the 5D2 out of the water when it comes to alias-free resolution.