No, I do understand your position, and I still think that your assumption is incorrect.... based primarily on the fact that I used to assume the same thing.

Thanks for the explanation. If most of the audience is like what you describe, I wonder why content producers haven't tried to appeal to them more often already? As far as I can tell, most film and primetime TV productions still strive for gourmet image and sound.

Thanks for the explanation. If most of the audience is like what you describe, I wonder why content producers haven't tried to appeal to them more often already? As far as I can tell, most film and primetime TV productions still strive for gourmet image and sound.

On the other hand, inexpensive consumer cameras have infiltrated mainstream productions like never before. For example, today CNN routinely broadcasts content created with webcams, 25 years ago, ABC's idea of the webcam was 16mm -- a format capable of 14 stops of latitude and equivalent 2k resolution. That's the irony, digital keeps making things cheaper and better while content producers keep lowering the bar on acceptable standards. The playing field is shifting in all different directions, HD raises the bar, UGC lowers it. What it comes down to more than ever is can you break through the white noise and come up with the next Pet Rock? Shooting test charts and counting beans will not get you there.

Are you sure its accurate to say that 16mm film stocks and lenses of 25 years ago were capable of the equivalent of 2k resolution and 14stops of latitude?

Dont you think if CNN wouldve run webcam footage 25 years ago if thats what bystanders shot their accounts of breaking news events on?

I've got 16mm footage shot in the 1930's that looks gorgeous. Better than most of the stuff that gets posted here. And these are Home movies. I really don't know the exact resolving power of a 25 y/o lens, but good glass isn't an invention of the 21 century, and it's hardly the point and in fact highlights the problem: obsessing over charts. Further, a lot (not all) of chart testing that gets posted on the internet isn't scientific and is unreliable. Chart tests that get posted are often followed by How-to DVD's or books and seminars or some other self serving product.

But what if you need the depth of field control we get with the 7D and 5D. What is better then-- Those same video cameras with adapters, or the 7D/5D choice? That is the real question. I am interessted to hear what you have found regarding resolving power in that situation.Well, you have to factor in that the 7D in its entirety costs about the same as an adapter! And that it has way better low light performance than a video camera with adapter rig.

And, further, that it depends on what adapter you're talking about.

If you want ultimate resolution, an EX1 or HPX300 with a Letus Ultimate is going to give you more resolved detail than a 5D or 7D will. But then you're talking about $12,000 or more -- so at what point does the wallet intrude on the reality?

And then there's the practical aspects of hauling around a rig with an adapter and collimating it and all that, vs. just plopping a 7D on a tripod and getting the shot.

Again, back to the point, this thread was started about actual resolving power. A lower-quality adapter could indeed blur some or even a significant portion of the video camera's resolution. I only have a Letus Ultimate, so that's the only way I've been able to test, and the Ultimate on an HMC40 shows substantially higher resolution than the 7D or GH1.

Whether the end audience prefers that image, is another question.

If you want ultimate resolution, an EX1 or HPX300 with a Letus Ultimate is going to give you more resolved detail than a 5D or 7D will. But then you're talking about $12,000 or more

At that point, we're into Scarlet S35 or FF35 territory (depending on announcements due later today.) That should give low noise, shallow DOF, high resolution, and little or no aliasing.

But at the Canon DvSLR price points, nothing beats them for shallow DOF and low noise. As long as you're shooting stuff that doesn't alias badly or move too quickly, they rule.

Assuming that RED S35/FF35 can handle Canon lenses, owning a Canon DvSLR and renting a Scarlet as needed could be a great solution.

Well, you have to factor in that the 7D in its entirety costs about the same as an adapter! And that it has way better low light performance than a video camera with adapter rig.

This post reflects my exact purpose for buying the 7D and selling the Redrock M2 Encore. Tonight was my first shoot with the 7D and it performed exactly as I had hoped it would. Setup from location to location was ultra fast and in a pinch I was able to up the ISO and get shots I would have never been able to get with the M2. I had to change one shot of a close-up on a cell phone screen due to unbearable moire, but only because my backup cam wasn't any better in that department either (HVX200).

Thanks for the explanation. If most of the audience is like what you describe, I wonder why content producers haven't tried to appeal to them more often already? As far as I can tell, most film and primetime TV productions still strive for gourmet image and sound.

It certainly depends on the type of show, but the high-contrast, over saturated & sharpened look seems to be much more common across primetime television than it was 10 or 20 years ago. A specific example would be CSI and all it's spin-offs and imitators - which have consistently been some of the highest rated shows over the past decade. For instance, compare CSI:Miami to Miami Vice - which in it's time was considered very saturated (and definitely would have been 'gourmet' compared to it's contemporaries), but now looks almost pallid in comparison.

Well....."Times-a-Changin"...maybe we should all adapt or get left behind.

Ian-T

It certainly depends on the type of show, but the high-contrast, over saturated & sharpened look seems to be much more common across primetime television than it was 10 or 20 years ago. A specific example would be CSI and all it's spin-offs and imitators - which have consistently been some of the highest rated shows over the past decade. For instance, compare CSI:Miami to Miami Vice - which in it's time was considered very saturated (and definitely would have been 'gourmet' compared to it's contemporaries), but now looks almost pallid in comparison.

Excellent examples, thanks. I guess then the only remaining issue is when the amount of in-camera candy is too much or not enough. For example, if the amount of aliasing on the 5D2 is perfect for someone's needs, then they're fine. But if they want less or more, the control isn't there.

Daniel,

Clearly, we'd like zero aliasing and a brick-wall filter with 100% resolution. One could always introduce some out of band stuff by sharpening, if they wanted to go past the limit.

But this is moot. If we want big sensor 1080p for less than $17.5k (RED ONE), we get aliasing. The question isn't whether we want it, or how much we want, but can we tolerate it.

I think the answer is "yes" for most applications short of a big screen feature. If you think about it, this takes care of itself: if you have a project that requires a gourmet look, you probably have a budget that can handle a broadcast cam, RED ONE, or film. If you have a DvSLR budget, you probably don't have to satisfy gourmet-hungry clients.

There are two trends approaching: putting DvSLR guts in a video cam, and improving DvSLR guts in terms of aliasing, jello and bit depth. Frankly, I could care less about the first scenario. I've adapted. But I'd love to have RED ONE-plus quality at a DvSLR price. I give it three years...

Clearly, we'd like zero aliasing and a brick-wall filter with 100% resolution. One could always introduce some out of band stuff by sharpening, if they wanted to go past the limit.

But this is moot. If we want big sensor 1080p for less than $17.5k (RED ONE), we get aliasing. The question isn't whether we want it, or how much we want, but can we tolerate it.


Agreed. For me it's a choice between big sensor and aliasing (5D2) or little sensor and no aliasing (3-chip). I can't wait for the future when I wont have to make that choice as often.

Agreed. For me it's a choice between big sensor and aliasing (5D2) or little sensor and no aliasing (3-chip). .

Just get one of each! Cover your bases.

You still need to decide which to shoot with - unless you bungee-wrap them together and shoot in stereo. ;)

Excellent examples, thanks. I guess then the only remaining issue is when the amount of in-camera candy is too much or not enough. For example, if the amount of aliasing on the 5D2 is perfect for someone's needs, then they're fine. But if they want less or more, the control isn't there.

Absolutely, and I'm not arguing that we all should be filming this way - just that for a lot of content intended for a general (i.e. non-filmmaker or film enthusiast) audience it's not necessarily a big limitation if that's what your camera produces.

It's certainly better to have the option of creating that look in post to the degree you want it, but right now that's not really the choice we have at the price point of these cameras. You choose between absolute resolution, minimal aliasing, better color depth and ergonomics, or shallow DOF, lens flexibility, low light performance and compact size. I wish we didn't have to make this choice, but at the same time I'm glad we do have the choice - which we didn't even have a couple years ago. And I'm pretty sure that in a few more years we'll get it all (or almost all) in a single camera.

I tend to look at the 5D as similar to the vx1000 - it was far from a perfect camera, but it represented a significant turning point in the quality and capabilities that were available - and that videographers expected - at that price point. And even with it's limitations a lot of people did a lot of good work with the vx1000.