"Real" 1080 24p resolution

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

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.

snipped

You may be over thinking this. Sometimes people just like what they like. I like Candy and burgers. Chicken Kiev doesn't rock my world.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Mikko Topponen

Aliasing never looks good and it doesn't add any "perceived sharpness". Atleast not to my eyes.

So then the simple question I put to you is: does the 7D look sharper than a 500-line video camera?

Or, let me put it another way -- how sharp does this wedge of a resolution chart look to you?

I have them both and I have shot material with them both. Your awfully tempting me to pull out a couple of test images.

Sure, whatever you'd like. Just pull out images that show actual resolved detail, since that's what this thread is about. Shoot charts, or shoot a newspaper at various text sizes, and let's see which one makes the text easier to read. I'd be willing to bet that if the test is conducted accurately, you'll find that the text is far more legible on an EX1 or HPX300 or even an HV20, than it is off of *any* HDSLR. Because those video cameras resolve more detail.

Don't just go shooting some random shot of trees or whatever, because that's where the aliasing gets to work its "magic". Shoot something where you actually want to be able to resolve detail, and you'll find the 1080p video cameras are better at it than the DSLRs are, hands down, no questions asked.

[Alex Payne]

the 7d has footage that looks awesome and i can afford it.


case closed.

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

So then the simple question I put to you is: does the 7D look sharper than a 500-line video camera?

Or, let me put it another way -- how sharp does this wedge of a resolution chart look to you?



Sure, whatever you'd like. Just pull out images that show actual resolved detail, since that's what this thread is about. Shoot charts, or shoot a newspaper at various text sizes, and let's see which one makes the text easier to read. I'd be willing to bet that if the test is conducted accurately, you'll find that the text is far more legible on an EX1 or HPX300 or even an HV20, than it is off of *any* HDSLR. Because those video cameras resolve more detail.

Don't just go shooting some random shot of trees or whatever, because that's where the aliasing gets to work its "magic". Shoot something where you actually want to be able to resolve detail, and you'll find the 1080p video cameras are better at it than the DSLRs are, hands down, no questions asked.

Barry:

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.

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

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.

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. I used to 'fix' peoples TVs for them by turning down sharpness, saturation, contrast, etc to get a more natural, organic looking image - more often than not they would complain that the image looked worse or I'd find it right back where it was a week later. Or I'd 'fix' the aspect ratio and they'd complain about the image not being full-screen.

I finally realized that they really did prefer it 'wrong' and that showing them something 'better' didn't make them change their minds - I was assuming that they would feel the same way I did if I just showed them the difference. This is a projection bias that I think is common to most people who do spend the time to learn and appreciate the finer nuances of any particular subject.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

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.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

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.

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

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?

[Brian Luce]

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.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

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.

[Jon Fairhurst]

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.

[John C. Plunkett]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

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).

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

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.

[Ian G. Thompson]

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

Ian-T

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

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.