"Real" 1080 24p resolution

[Daniel von Euw]

I think we must go down to earth - including my thelf.

For the price of an Top Photo Cam we became the 5D II / 7D including the zero bucks option to make films with a classical 35mm DoF.

Can we really expect to became for this price a cam that can we compare to a Red One for 20,000 Bucks?

Or can we really expect that this zero extra bucks option will have no limitations compare to an > 5,000 bucks videocam?


But if i read the Statement of Steve Mims - "But the short answer, as it relates to this thread, is that the 7D footage looks better than the EX 1 footage even at 800 ASA. I've seen my rough cut projected on a 2K projector on a 16 foot screen and it looks amazing"

Thats all i need to know and its far more then i have expected one year before.

So one of this cams is good enough to me and if i need more quality i think that in 1 or 2 year canon will present a professional videocam body with large chip for presumable more than 6 - 8 thousand bucks and the opportunity to go on use the same lens.


Sorry for my english - hope its clear what i want tu say.


Daniel

[Daniel Browning]

Thanks, Peter. I really appreciate the time you took the analyze and post process the images.

Originally Posted by Peter Moretti

Daniel,

The aliased image is also slightly warmer, which will cause more people to pick it.

I do agree that people will tend to prefer a warmer image. I took another long, hard look at the images, and I do see a lot of differences, but for me, color isn't one of them. To my eye, the overall color warmth appears to the same (i.e. same average RGB values), even though they different in many other ways.

Originally Posted by Peter Moretti

I brought both grabs into Avid and CC'd just the non-aliased one to make it warmer.

I think it looks more appealing.

I agree that the CC'd image is more appealing, but I think it makes the color very different between the two.

For what it's worth, both images were generated from the same file:

20 MB original PNG conversion

In turn, the PNG was generated from this raw file:

24 MB Original raw file

To generate the aliased file, I downsampled the original PNG with a point-sampling algorithm in ImageMagick (a command-line image processing program):

convert -filter Point -resize 400x 2009-01-30-3481-rt.png 2009-01-30-3481-rt-400-point.png

To generate the anti-aliased file, I downsampled the same PNG file with the lanczos algorithm in ImageMagick:

convert -resize 400x 2009-01-30-3481.png 2009-01-30-3481-rt-400-lanczos.png

Neither of those operations introduce a color shift aside from what is caused by aliasing itself. In the case of this image, I don't really see an overall color shift due to the aliasing. (To my eye, anyway.) That's part of the reason why I picked this image for a demonstration. On other images, especially ones with fine, repeating detail (e.g. man-made), the aliasing definitely causes a significant color shift.

[Peter Moretti]

Daniel,

I made the CC'd non-aliased image warmer than the aliased image, just to make people's preference for warmth a little more obvious.

That said, looking at the original images in a vector scope confirms that the aliased image is slightly warmer.

[Mikko Topponen]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

A Canon HV20 will have quite a bit higher resolution than a 7D.

There is a difference between resolution and sharpness. Aliasing adds a ton of perceived "sharpness" but it is not resolved detail, it's spurious image contamination that -- in many conditions -- looks "good".

Aliasing never looks good and it doesn't add any "perceived sharpness". Atleast not to my eyes. I have them both and I have shot material with them both. Your awfully tempting me to pull out a couple of test images.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

...the HVX200 which had been the standard bearer for "Rebel" digital film makers.

Maybe the new standard bearer for "Rebel" digital film makers is the "Rebel" digital T1i by Canon. ;)

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

[...] And, afterall, the goal we all have is a watchable film. In that respect, I have to challenge the comparison Dan raises between a bag of candy and a five star meal at a pretentious restaurant..... that may be his preference, but I would wager a lot more out there would opt for a pizza or burger....because of the waste of money associated with the overkill at that five star restaurant. The same would apply to choice of cameras, depending on your need.

The candy metaphor does not apply to the 5D2 as a whole (or any current video DSLR): just individual aspects of image quality in isolation.

Some will shoot the 5D2 with lifelike color, saturation, normal sharpening, and high dynamic range: gourmet meal. Others will configure it for over-the-top neon green grass, extreme sharpening, and ultra contrast: candy. The difference is that the 5D2 gives you a choice when it comes to saturation, sharpening, dynamic range, etc. You can pick anything from candy to pizza, burger, or gourmet if you want.

But when it comes to aliasing and resolution, the DSLR leaves you no choice. It is in full-on candy mode all the time: strong aliasing, low resolution. If you hate candy, then that is a negative. If you like candy, it's a positive. My opinion is that most audiences *think* they like candy (high aliasing, low resolution), but would actually enjoy a gourmet meal more. But in the case of the 5D2 it doesn't matter, since candy is the only option. You can't pick a pizza, burger, or anything else.

Originally Posted by John C. Plunkett

I know for my purposes the footage I can achieve with the 7D is going to work just fine for my clients as well as for the viewing public.

Here's my point with the candy metaphor: some people like aliasing (candy), so the aliasing of a DSLR is just another benefit to all types of shots. Others dislike candy, but they still use a video DSLR in spite of it, because the other benefits outweigh the aliasing. The category you belong to might change depending on what type of shot you're doing (e.g. deep DOF vs thin DOF).

Originally Posted by Daniel von Euw

I think we must go down to earth

Agreed. We acknowledge that the DSLRs have lower resolution than camcorders that cost an order of magnitude less, but we still use them because they have other benefits. We know that the aliasing artifacts are what make some viewers consider the image "sharp", even though it has very poor resolution, but that's OK too, because sometimes it's an acceptable trade off.

[David Sholle]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Not with the current chips -- that's a hardware limitation. One company is addressing the chip read speed and will introduce an HDSLR that will have no such compromises; they should announce that the day after tomorrow.

But let's be clear on something: the companies aren't "saddling" anything with limitations! They're offering low-cost products. It is no more fair to say that they're "saddling" the current cameras with limitations, than it would be to say that a laptop manufacturer is "saddling" their netbooks with Atom chips. It's all about price point. Pay $6,000 and you can have a Core i7 chip. Pay $299, and you get the Atom. That's how it works. Better chips cost more. And these cameras' chips are still-camera chips, not designed for video at all. In terms of video performance, these cameras have given us the Atom chip right now (limited to 8fps read speed). If/when they produce the 60fps or even 120fps barnstormer we all want, I guarantee you it won't cost $1699, any more than a screaming Mac Pro Octo-Core is going to cost $599. You got $599, you get a Mac Mini, that's how it works. You want an Octo-Core Mac Pro, you find $5999 in your wallet for that. The cameras will be the same way.

Barry, thanks for the well thought out feedback. When I wrote my other post, I really wasn't sure if there was a hardware limitation with the current CMOS chip itself, or just the software. Read out of CMOS chips will need to become a lot faster to cure this problem.

I am an advanced amateur that has been dabbling in video since the Hi8 days, and photography long before that. Most of my video work is for my own and my family's enjoyment, including vacations to places all over the globe. Some of the video I do I use as part of my job as a college professor, and the 7D/5D MkII, even with their limitations, are close to ideal for what I need in that capacity. I teach in a planetarium, and the 7D or 5D MkII, fitted with a Sigma true 180 degree fisheye lens, can take both stills or video that can be projected right onto our 180 degree dome through our digital planetarium projection system - the distortion introduced by the fisheye automatically corrects when projected onto the dome with our projection system fitted with a fisheye lens. Stills can be taken at intervals at very high resolutions, then combined into a movie, which can be projected on the dome. I have seen examples of others doing this for beautiful timelapse sequences of clouds and sunsets, etc. In that use, the excellent still capability of the 5D and 7D is a big plus, and the video footage is certainly usable.

[Chris Barcellos]

Here is a real world look at 35mm film, F350 and Canon 5d. The D o P is holding a contest. To experts it should be easy to tell difference.


YouTube - Where's the Canon 5D?

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by David Chapman

is the 7D 1080 24p camera original resolution correct (like Sony EX1)?

I shot an 2min interview a year ago with my HD100. The client wasn't pleased with their reading so she wanted to shoot again. It was my first shoot on the 7D. She actually wore the same clothes and it was in the same location with the same lights. The difference is night and day. The 7D (with a fast lens) lets you create some beautiful shots.

Hello, Any possibility of some frame comparisons? I have the same two rigs and so far I'm still able to get a better image on the JVC.

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

My opinion is that most audiences *think* they like candy (high aliasing, low resolution), but would actually enjoy a gourmet meal more.

You have to be really careful about this kind of assumption. While it's certainly true that over time a person may train themselves (or be trained) to appreciate the nuances of a 'gourmet meal' over 'candy' that doesn't mean that they don't actually, truly, prefer the candy right now - and may always prefer it because it's not an important enough part of their life to spend the time necessary to understand and appreciate the 'gourmet'.

I think it's important to keep sight of the fact that those of us on these forums who care about this stuff make up only a tiny fraction of the audience for our work - and to the rest of the audience things like dynamic range, resolution, aliasing, DOF and even frame rate are meaningless. Either the overall picture looks good to them or not - and it's never judged in isolation from the story, acting, sound, mise en scene, etc. If you've got a camera that lets you make images that your audience likes then there are more important things to spend your time on than worrying about whether it's producing real resolution or just aliasing - 99% of your audience just doesn't care as long as the whole production works for them.

[Scott Lovejoy]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Here is a real world look at 35mm film, F350 and Canon 5d. The D o P is holding a contest. To experts it should be easy to tell difference.


YouTube - Where's the Canon 5D?

I think the point may be that it might not be so easy to tell the difference.

His original post:
Where’s the 5D? | Hurlbut Visuals

[Jon Fairhurst]

Regarding the candy vs. gourmet choice... the viewer never has a choice. The viewer watches the film/TV show/short/ad as presented. Nobody outside of an edit bay - or web forum - does an A/B comparison.

The options are 1) I liked the way it looked, 2) I didn't like the way it looked, and 3) I was paying attention to the story, so I didn't notice how it looked. As long as they don't go with number 2 (pun intended), it's good enough for most real world situations.

Of course, the client might be more picky. Gotta satisfy whoever is paying the bills.

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Scott Lovejoy

I think the point may be that it might not be so easy to tell the difference.

His original post:
Where’s the 5D? | Hurlbut Visuals

That was my point in posting it. But since there are those that can tell, this is an opportunity to show how they can detect it.

[Scott Lovejoy]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

That was my point in posting it. But since there are those that can tell, this is an opportunity to show how they can detect it.

I agree, if anyone knows I would like to see how they know. It looks from the comments on his site that most people are guessing based on jello or aliasing.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

If you've got a camera that lets you make images that your audience likes then there are more important things to spend your time on than worrying about whether it's producing real resolution or just aliasing

Yes. It's always good to have a reminder that resolution is just one small part of image quality, and image quality is just one small part of the production, and any given production is just one small part of a lifetime of productions.

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

You have to be really careful about this kind of assumption. While it's certainly true that over time a person may train themselves (or be trained) to appreciate the nuances of a 'gourmet meal' over 'candy' that doesn't mean that they don't actually, truly, prefer the candy right now - and may always prefer it because it's not an important enough part of their life to spend the time necessary to understand and appreciate the 'gourmet'.

I'm not sure if you understood my position. I don't make any assumptions about training, learning, or eventual appreciation over time. I'm talking about untrained, unlearned, and immediate appreciation. My idea is that there is a disconnect between the specific sensory inputs that they think they like on the surface level and the truly important, deep-down appreciation that they feel of a moving image as a whole.

Say you have two screenings. The candy screening is low res, bad aliasing, oversaturated, oversharpened, overcontrasty (blown whites & clipped blacks), 24 converted to 120hz, plastic noise reduction, and heavily compressed (low DR) audio. The gourmet screening has high res, no aliasing, normal saturation, normal sharpening, normal contrast (detail in whites and blacks), 24p left alone, normal amount of noise/grain, and high DR audio.

My opinion is that most people will say that they like the second (gourmet) screening a lot more. If they put it into words they might call it more realistic, immersive, beautiful, film-like, etc. The first screening they'll just not enjoy as much. If they try to say why, they might say it looked fake, didn't draw them in, unspectacular, and looks like their own home videos.

If you try to get specific with them, and do A/B comparisons asking "which one is sharper?" they'll still pick the aliased and oversharpened image. For color, they'll still say that oversaturated and overcontrasty one has better color. For sound, they'll pick the loudest low-DR one. And so on. They may rationalize the difference by saying that the gourmet movie was better in *spite* of having less aliasing, or despite normal sharpening; they may even suggest that the gourmet would have been better if you made it more like the first (candy) screening; not realizing those were the very factors that made them love the gourmet so much.

In other words, I think they prefer the gourmet screening but they don't know why. They think they like aliasing, and they say that they like aliasing, but if you actually give it to them they will like it less on levels that are more important and lasting.

My position is that there is a big disconnect between the important feelings about a motion image (immersive, beautiful, quality) and what the viewer *thinks* is the way to get that feeling (aliasing, sharpening, etc.). I think it's our job to ignore what they are asking for in order to give them what they really want. Aliasing tickles the most obvious outer layers of sensory input, but it doesn't go down deep to really satisfy.

What they really want is the best dining experience possible. They think the right way to get it is a bag of corn syrup. But if you actually give them what they say they want, they will dislike it very much. They wont say that the meal wasn't sweet enough, but they'll find other words for it, like "low production values", "lackluster", "like my own homemade meals". If you give them a gourmet meal, they will love it, but they wont know why.

The same thing applies to other areas of life. Say your car is leaking water into the carpet. You think it's the heater core. You drop it off at the mechanic and say it needs a new heater core ($1,000), without saying why. Before he starts, the mechanic discovers the water leak and finds that it's caused by a plugged hose ($1). He can probably guess that the real reason you dropped it off was because of the leak, not the heater core. You only think you want the heater core, when in reality you want the leak fixed. Now, he can give you what you're asking for, which is a new heater core, but that wont fix your real need. Or, he can give you what you really want, which is to stop the leak. Viewers want a good image. They ask for aliasing, oversharpening, 24p to 120 hz, etc., because on the surface of it they think that's what gives them a good image. I think there is a disconnect. The difference, of course, is that a leak is an obvious, objective fact that can be proven; whereas the true appreciation of an image is subjective, and my opinion that such a disconnect exists in most viewers is just that: an opinion.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Yes, exactly.
They are capable of spectacular resolution. I shot a side-by-side of the 7D in movie mode, vs. the 7D shooting the same scene in motor-drive stills mode (6fps) and then resized the stills in PhotoShop to 1920x1080. It was shockingly better...

On the subject of using the still image option of DSLR cameras rather than the video option, it is worth taking a look at Stop-Motion techniques to make videos rather than using the video mode. Here Andrew Kornylak uses the Nikon D3 (NOT the D3s) for making videos by shooting still images on the camera's fastest motordrive setting. See D3s thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/photo-hd...-d3s-720p.html

Andrew mentions about his work using the Nikon D3 on his blog "...It is pretty close to a video look, but a little different. I can shoot with strobes (like in the Nikki Blue commercial), and the color depth of even a cropped jpeg is better than the best HD video frame. I can make 11×14 prints from a frame grab, which sweetens the pot for a client looking to do a still and motion shoot without an outrageous production..."

Some more Stop-Motion video using the D2x and D3 can be found here:

Stillmotion - Motion projects shot with a Nikon D3 (and D2X) on Vimeo