Why the 7D doesn't look so cinematic as the 5D?

Jon Fairhurst · November 29th, 2009, 12:48 AM

Chris,

It's possible that that TV had 120Hz or 240Hz processing, which smooths motion and removes the dreamlike 24p feel. It might have also had noise reduction, as well as some black/white crush and mid-stretch. Add some sharpening and the image will not be much like the director saw on the studio monitor.

Brian Luce · November 29th, 2009, 02:35 AM

I've noticed cgi always looks fake on my TV but real in theaters.

Mike Peterson · November 29th, 2009, 01:20 PM

It's interesting to see people pointing out that there isn't as good of footage out there from the 7D as from the 5D. The 7D has been out a little over a month and the 5D a year. And to those who think it's insane to shoot a feature on it will see many features shot on it...some will look like crap and some will look good. It's just a tool. The person behind the camera will dictate how good things look not the camera. The 7D can look as cinematic as any camera.

Cris Daniels · November 29th, 2009, 10:06 PM

How do you get a decent 20-24mm focal length lens on a 7D. You don't and that is a serious problem. I have the turkey 10-22 EF-S and trust me, it is no Cooke or Zeiss prime....You can't having warping on a feature shoot shot with a wide lens unless it is for effect.

The fact is that some shows are switching back to film. I am a believer that someday this will be like the still camera market (try to find someone that even processes basic E-6 anymore), but Kodak had monster motion picture film business last year, so the migration to digital acquisition is not quite as fast as some would believe.

The jello cam rolling shutter is totally unacceptable, especially on the DSLR's, who could explain to a studio that you cut a $60 million dollar picture on such a piece of equipment. I dont believe for two seconds that any major studio exec would greenlight a 5D or 7D, instead of an ARRI 35mm rig. You are going to pay someone 5-20 million to be in a movie and shoot them on a $2500 camera from Best Buy? Maybe for production stills...

The camera cost is not a major problem in the big boy movie industry, make a CG version of Brad Pitt if you really want to save some money on a film.

While I am in total agreement that it is not necessarily the tools, but the operator, it doesn't always jive. Citizen Kane could not have been made on some current HD $1000 camcorder from Best Buy.

Ansel Adams got those amazing negs using large format equipment, not a polaroid or an APS camera. So in the right hands, the right tools do make a difference. In the wrong hands, well, nothing will override the rule "garbage in/garbage out".

Michael Fousie · November 29th, 2009, 10:59 PM

Near giving up on the 7D and the 18-135 kit lens because of the inferior image quality, I discovered the Micro Adjustment function on the camera. The image I'm shooting today is much cleaner than what I shot yesterday with this new setting. My kit lens is now focusing properly after a minus 5 (-5) setting was registered for my kit lens. check page 211 of the manual and also check out:
AF microadjustment for the 1Ds mark III, 1D Mk3, 5D Mk2, 7D

It's a bit of experimentation which is well worth the effort to match your lens to your 7D

Brian Drysdale · November 30th, 2009, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Peterson

And to those who think it's insane to shoot a feature on it will see many features shot on it...some will look like crap and some will look good. It's just a tool. The person behind the camera will dictate how good things look not the camera. The 7D can look as cinematic as any camera.

Given that features have been shoot using a mobile phone, I expect there will be. Although above a certain budget, (or unless there are story telling reasons) there are digital cameras out there which can do a better job. Which isn't to say that you can't use the 7D or 5D in scenes which play to their strengths eg low light levels.

Currently you can rent a RED One for about the same price as a Digibeta and I expect the S35 Scarlet (when it gets out) will be even cheaper. The camera tends to be one of the cheaper items on a feature film budget anyway.

Joachim Ljungquist · December 1st, 2009, 12:33 PM

We all know that cinematic quality of footage depend a lot on know-how (sometimes more than the equipment). My theory is that many clips from (the more expensive) 5D mk II where shot by people that are more experienced than people shooting with (the cheaper) 7D.

That said: There are a lot of good shots from the 5D mkII that has been out there for a while. Meaning what? At that time the 5D mkII was even more expensive and would appeal to photographers/filmmakers with some more experience.

Wrong or right? Who knows - but seems like a reasonable theory to me :)

Chris Barcellos · December 1st, 2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Currently you can rent a RED One for about the same price as a Digibeta and I expect the S35 Scarlet (when it gets out) will be even cheaper. The camera tends to be one of the cheaper items on a feature film budget anyway.

This is great if you are experienced with large chip shooting. But if you are not, there is nothing like living with a large chip camera and picking it up daily to develop and hone your skills with that format. The benefit of the 5D and 7D is that you can get that "film" training relatively cheaply. I say go for it if that is where you want to be.

Jon Fairhurst · December 1st, 2009, 01:22 PM

Chris hit the nail on the head. The 7D and 5D2 both provide experience with large chip shooting for cheap. The images look great to most people, despite any technical flaws.

35mm forces users to learn about lenses. The big sensor forces users to learn focus. The manual mode forces users to learn about exposure. Rolling shutter forces users to employ stability. Aliasing forces users to consider the content in the frame.

Learn to shoot well on the 5D2/7D, and you'll have developed the general skills to shoot well on most anything electronic. Big film cameras? Well, there's always more to learn...

Stephen Mick · December 1st, 2009, 01:30 PM

I'd add this to what Jon said:

Using these cameras, with their hobbled audio features, also makes one pay more attention to sound and how it's captured than they otherwise might.

Jeremy Hughes · December 1st, 2009, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cris Daniels

Much lesser cams? Like what? The 5D is at the bottom of the ladder. The camera is not even close to the Sony EX1 or EX3. Please!! And on a set of a major feature the EX1/EX3 are relegated to B-Roll if anything.

I don't think you'll see anything like a 5D on a major film anytime. I don't think that was the point being made. I love my EX as a camera to own and just got a 7D to sit along side - or travel cheaper with a lighter gear kit. I crew/gear up when a production can afford it immediately though.

If someone gets a little money and shoots with a DSLR in their kit right now then that can be a really smart thing I think. On a micro budget, it can reduce lighting needs and amount of crew (including over an EX1/3 + 35mm adapter). Those are big cost savings when you dont have much. That then can be money put into other areas of the production where needed. I agree these cameras have a ton of issues but they can allow someone to save a lot when they have very little to work with. Camera and format selection is one of the lesser worries in getting an indy film sold and distributed.

Jon, Chris Barcellos and Stephen make dead on points about using them.

Jon Fairhurst · December 1st, 2009, 11:16 PM

Jeremy,

You're spot on about nobody making a major feature on a DvSLR. If I get enough money for a big feature, I'll make room for a better camera - purchased or otherwise.

On the other hand, if I were making a no-budget feature spread out over weeks upon weeks of people donating their time, I'd not hesitate to use the 5D2. It might not be technically ideal, but it still pleases most viewers when used well.

And while it might not be a big feature camera, it's been used on Saturday Night Live and on TV commercials with six figure budgets. On one ad that I'm aware of, they used to rent $70,000 cams, and the producer was thrilled with the 5D results and plans to use the camera again.

It's easy to see the technical faults, but we shouldn't let the imperfections make us forget what the camera is capable of producing.

Jeremy Hughes · December 2nd, 2009, 12:45 AM

One of my favorite examples of how these cameras can mix in right now is the 30 Seconds to Mars video
YouTube - 30 Seconds to Mars-Kings and Queens Music Video

They shot RED and Phantom in parts but mixed in the use of 6 or 7 7Ds during the bike scenes which otherwise wouldn't really have been possible without hauling 18ks up into the sky.

Charles Papert · December 2nd, 2009, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

You're spot on about nobody making a major feature on a DvSLR.

Shane Hurlbut ASC has been working with the 5D for the past eight months or so on a feature about Navy Seals. It's not a "major" feature as defined by a studio film that will be guaranteed wide release, but it's far beyond a low-budget feature in scope. Shane originally used the 5D for action sequences where the size of the camera allowed for unusual configurations and helmet-cam POV's but gradually began using it for the traditional storytelling aspects as well instead of 35mm, as he had been at the beginning of the shoot. I've seen a number of clips from the film as well as having helped shoot some of it and it is the real deal.

Gerald Baillgergeau · December 2nd, 2009, 12:22 PM

Just because the 7d is inexpensive, compared to the $3000 or plus group of cameras, shouldn't take away the fact that in the right hands it can produce some amazing images.. I believe If Canon were to add all the bells and chimes to these DSLRs, like on their video cams, the cost would probably be right up there at 3 or 4 grand.. and who's to say someone can't get a feature film in the theaters shot with a 7 or the 5??.. 28 Days Later was shot using a couple of Canon XL1s's, not even HD, and did well(theres more i just can't think of them right now..lol).. Content is king!! A good story, a lil hype and people won't care what it was shot on. Many major feature films shot with the standard gear have flopped. Not because it wasn't cinematically pleasing, its cuz the movie sucked! So carry on people, let the creative juices flow regardless what cam you decide to use..

November 29th, 2009, 12:48 AM	#16
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Chris, It's possible that that TV had 120Hz or 240Hz processing, which smooths motion and removes the dreamlike 24p feel. It might have also had noise reduction, as well as some black/white crush and mid-stretch. Add some sharpening and the image will not be much like the director saw on the studio monitor. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

November 29th, 2009, 01:20 PM	#18
Mike Peterson Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: White Bear Lake, Minnesota Posts: 85	It's interesting to see people pointing out that there isn't as good of footage out there from the 7D as from the 5D. The 7D has been out a little over a month and the 5D a year. And to those who think it's insane to shoot a feature on it will see many features shot on it...some will look like crap and some will look good. It's just a tool. The person behind the camera will dictate how good things look not the camera. The 7D can look as cinematic as any camera. __________________ www.insectula.com

December 1st, 2009, 01:22 PM	#24
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Chris hit the nail on the head. The 7D and 5D2 both provide experience with large chip shooting for cheap. The images look great to most people, despite any technical flaws. 35mm forces users to learn about lenses. The big sensor forces users to learn focus. The manual mode forces users to learn about exposure. Rolling shutter forces users to employ stability. Aliasing forces users to consider the content in the frame. Learn to shoot well on the 5D2/7D, and you'll have developed the general skills to shoot well on most anything electronic. Big film cameras? Well, there's always more to learn... __________________ Jon Fairhurst

December 1st, 2009, 01:30 PM	#25
Stephen Mick Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 167	…and audio. I'd add this to what Jon said: Using these cameras, with their hobbled audio features, also makes one pay more attention to sound and how it's captured than they otherwise might.

December 1st, 2009, 11:16 PM	#27
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Jeremy, You're spot on about nobody making a major feature on a DvSLR. If I get enough money for a big feature, I'll make room for a better camera - purchased or otherwise. On the other hand, if I were making a no-budget feature spread out over weeks upon weeks of people donating their time, I'd not hesitate to use the 5D2. It might not be technically ideal, but it still pleases most viewers when used well. And while it might not be a big feature camera, it's been used on Saturday Night Live and on TV commercials with six figure budgets. On one ad that I'm aware of, they used to rent $70,000 cams, and the producer was thrilled with the 5D results and plans to use the camera again. It's easy to see the technical faults, but we shouldn't let the imperfections make us forget what the camera is capable of producing. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

November 29th, 2009, 02:35 AM	#17
Brian Luce Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,290	I've noticed cgi always looks fake on my TV but real in theaters.

November 29th, 2009, 10:06 PM	#19
Cris Daniels Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 56	How do you get a decent 20-24mm focal length lens on a 7D. You don't and that is a serious problem. I have the turkey 10-22 EF-S and trust me, it is no Cooke or Zeiss prime....You can't having warping on a feature shoot shot with a wide lens unless it is for effect. The fact is that some shows are switching back to film. I am a believer that someday this will be like the still camera market (try to find someone that even processes basic E-6 anymore), but Kodak had monster motion picture film business last year, so the migration to digital acquisition is not quite as fast as some would believe. The jello cam rolling shutter is totally unacceptable, especially on the DSLR's, who could explain to a studio that you cut a $60 million dollar picture on such a piece of equipment. I dont believe for two seconds that any major studio exec would greenlight a 5D or 7D, instead of an ARRI 35mm rig. You are going to pay someone 5-20 million to be in a movie and shoot them on a $2500 camera from Best Buy? Maybe for production stills... The camera cost is not a major problem in the big boy movie industry, make a CG version of Brad Pitt if you really want to save some money on a film. While I am in total agreement that it is not necessarily the tools, but the operator, it doesn't always jive. Citizen Kane could not have been made on some current HD $1000 camcorder from Best Buy. Ansel Adams got those amazing negs using large format equipment, not a polaroid or an APS camera. So in the right hands, the right tools do make a difference. In the wrong hands, well, nothing will override the rule "garbage in/garbage out".

November 29th, 2009, 10:59 PM	#20
Michael Fousie New Boot Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 18	Near giving up on the 7D and the 18-135 kit lens because of the inferior image quality, I discovered the Micro Adjustment function on the camera. The image I'm shooting today is much cleaner than what I shot yesterday with this new setting. My kit lens is now focusing properly after a minus 5 (-5) setting was registered for my kit lens. check page 211 of the manual and also check out: AF microadjustment for the 1Ds mark III, 1D Mk3, 5D Mk2, 7D It's a bit of experimentation which is well worth the effort to match your lens to your 7D

December 1st, 2009, 12:33 PM	#22
Joachim Ljungquist Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 84	We all know that cinematic quality of footage depend a lot on know-how (sometimes more than the equipment). My theory is that many clips from (the more expensive) 5D mk II where shot by people that are more experienced than people shooting with (the cheaper) 7D. That said: There are a lot of good shots from the 5D mkII that has been out there for a while. Meaning what? At that time the 5D mkII was even more expensive and would appeal to photographers/filmmakers with some more experience. Wrong or right? Who knows - but seems like a reasonable theory to me :)

December 2nd, 2009, 12:45 AM	#28
Jeremy Hughes Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 276 Images: 2	One of my favorite examples of how these cameras can mix in right now is the 30 Seconds to Mars video YouTube - 30 Seconds to Mars-Kings and Queens Music Video They shot RED and Phantom in parts but mixed in the use of 6 or 7 7Ds during the bike scenes which otherwise wouldn't really have been possible without hauling 18ks up into the sky. __________________ www.elevate-m.com filmvideostuff.blogspot.com

December 2nd, 2009, 12:22 PM	#30
Gerald Baillgergeau Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Santa Monica, Ca Posts: 62	Just because the 7d is inexpensive, compared to the $3000 or plus group of cameras, shouldn't take away the fact that in the right hands it can produce some amazing images.. I believe If Canon were to add all the bells and chimes to these DSLRs, like on their video cams, the cost would probably be right up there at 3 or 4 grand.. and who's to say someone can't get a feature film in the theaters shot with a 7 or the 5??.. 28 Days Later was shot using a couple of Canon XL1s's, not even HD, and did well(theres more i just can't think of them right now..lol).. Content is king!! A good story, a lil hype and people won't care what it was shot on. Many major feature films shot with the standard gear have flopped. Not because it wasn't cinematically pleasing, its cuz the movie sucked! So carry on people, let the creative juices flow regardless what cam you decide to use.. Last edited by Gerald Baillgergeau; December 3rd, 2009 at 03:18 AM.