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

[Mike Peterson]

OP:
wWw.TheCostMovie.com

[Jon Fairhurst]

The thing about aliasing - and rolling shutter, for that matter - is that it's only a problem on some scenes. In fact, one could say the same thing about compression. It generally works great. But sometimes it gets bit starved and the image falls apart. That doesn't mean that we should never, ever use compression.

So, if you want a camera that looks great no matter what you throw at it, skip the current DvSLRs. If you have enough creative control to make a DvSLR sing - or can tolerate occasional imperfections, then go for it. :)

For me, the aliasing is real, but it simply hasn't been a problem. Frankly, rolling shutter has been more limiting than aliasing for me.

[Brian Luce]

The issue of aliasing has be covered ad nauseam. Any DP that does NOT know of this issue at this point fails to qualify as "competent DP".

[Rob deJong]

Originally Posted by Cris Daniels

I have been using the 7D for longer lens work, although that is certainly not mandatory. I have been taking advantage of the focal length multiplier. Since the 7D has that 1.6x multiplier, the 180mm L series macro is off the hook, effectively now a 288mm macro which means I can get the same level of magification as the 5D, but I don't have to get as close to the subject as I would with the 5D. For wildlife, this is important.

I've been shooting a ton of video of migratory birds, and then I bring out the heavy artillery. The Canon 500mm F4L prime, stick on a 1.4x series II extender and I am shooting at 1120mm ~f5.6. Dont even breathe near the camera at that focal length, but locked off the video is quite amazing.

Hi Cris,
I am wanting to buy the 5D or 7D for wildlife too. Would it be possible to see some of your work with both camera's, different lenses etc?
I would be very greatful.
Thanks,
Rob

[Phillip Palacios]

Why would it change a -competent- DP's thinking? Knowing the limitations of the tools you use would be a part of being competent.

[Cris Daniels]

First because you are barely shooting HD with the camera, it would be a complete lie to tell a client they are getting true 1080p footage since the camera has such limited resolving power, proven to be around 600-625 lines, the rest is fake.

Knowing the limitations if half the battle, very very true. But you cant possibly predict every situation where the aliasing and moire will rear its ugly head. I've had it show up in such a variety of shots from wildlife to indoor interviews.

And how could you tell a director (who has the blocking and moves predetermined) that we can't shoot "in that direction", or "with that prop" because the camera will generate artifacts that a true video camera would not.

I will still shoot with these cameras, but nothing that I can't afford to reshoot. Most DP's do not have that luxury to fall back on. Thats all I'm saying.

[Cris Daniels]

Rob, I would be happy to post some footage. I dont have a flickr or vimeo account, and I can't let people on my FTP (except clients of course!) . I'm not sure what the best way is to put up full res files....

[Jeremy Hughes]

Originally Posted by Cris Daniels

First because you are barely shooting HD with the camera, it would be a complete lie to tell a client they are getting true 1080p footage since the camera has such limited resolving power, proven to be around 600-625 lines, the rest is fake.

Knowing the limitations if half the battle, very very true. But you cant possibly predict every situation where the aliasing and moire will rear its ugly head. I've had it show up in such a variety of shots from wildlife to indoor interviews.

And how could you tell a director (who has the blocking and moves predetermined) that we can't shoot "in that direction", or "with that prop" because the camera will generate artifacts that a true video camera would not.

I will still shoot with these cameras, but nothing that I can't afford to reshoot. Most DP's do not have that luxury to fall back on. Thats all I'm saying.

Chris, I'm still not sure I'm getting your argument. Are you saying do not touch these cameras? Me being a director more than a shooter - if I don't consult my DP and producer throughout prepro and understanding how something might have to flip up if needed on a shoot and demand shots have to happen a certain way is pretty ludicrous. The point is, if someone is shooting with this camera, chances are its for effect, price, or placement. It works in certain situations - and I dont think anyone is arguing on this thread that its hands down an a-camera.

We shot this week on 2 smaller budget projects where we had the EX1 with Letus as the #1 and the 7D as the #2. The footage matches very well and where we needed b-roll where lighting wasn't an option, the 7D was a great friend where the EX/Letus combo couldn't work. Yesterday I shot with both the 7D and 5D on a shoot and again used it for its advantages, extremely shallow DOF and very little lighting needed.

Next week I'll use it on a shoot where there isn't an extra $1000 for baggage fees to fly a larger camera/lighting setup. These things are so cheap and small too, they can be places in spots where you would never think of placing something else.

They definitely have a ton of issues - yes - least of which IMO is the crappy codec and post workflow but can deliver an effect that smaller productions have not been able to take advantage of until now. It's a nice little tool until next summer when the S35 Scarlet gets here hopefully :)

BTW - another great example of this camera working great in a particular situation (RED and 5D)

Addikt 2 on Vimeo

[Pat Reddy]

Originally Posted by Cris Daniels

First because you are barely shooting HD with the camera, it would be a complete lie to tell a client they are getting true 1080p footage since the camera has such limited resolving power, proven to be around 600-625 lines, the rest is fake.

I think you have to remember that few if any HD cameras are "true 1080p" if this is your criterion. Even the EX1 is not resolving at 1920 by 1080 once you take into account the limits of the lens and the whole image acquisition chain. Panasonic's venerable HVX200, for example - which is approved by the BBC and other high end producers as fit for HD broadcast, has tested at about 500 or so lines if my memory serves me correctly. Many prosumer HDV cameras have resolutions around 600 to 650 (my HC-7 and HV20 come to mind). Canon's XH-A1 is about 800 and I think the EX1 is around 900. I think it is equally misleading to say the 5D II is not capable of true 1080p. Instead I think it is more appropriate to be aware of and honest about (if that's appropriate) its resolution limitations and how it compares with other HD cameras.

Resolution isn't everything, and I say that as a true pixel peeper.

Pat

[Mike Peterson]

Originally Posted by Cris Daniels

Rob, I would be happy to post some footage. I dont have a flickr or vimeo account, and I can't let people on my FTP (except clients of course!) . I'm not sure what the best way is to put up full res files....

It takes 2 minutes to make a vimeo account ;)

[Ian G. Thompson]

Chris Daniels, I understand that you don't quite "see the light" but I think everyone here has given some great comments in regards to these DSLRs. You make a case against its resolution not being HD...but really, if you can, point to any camera in this price range that's "really" HD. The problem is, you can't. Sure, they all vary in terms of resolvable image....but so what. They make pretty pictures...and for some...that's all that matters.

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.

When I mentioned "lesser" cams earlier I meant cams like the HF10's that were used in Crank and also that cell phone movie also comes to mind (and yes...even the standard definition XL1's in "28 days later"...I know they are prosumer cams...but it's still SD...and looked good in theaters though a little soft). Is resolution everything? In those cases I don't think so.

What's the problem in "knowing" your camera's strengths and weaknesses? Work around them. Even expensive cameras have their weaknesses...maybe not to the same degree...but when you compare the price differences then it should all make sense.

You talk about the EX-1/EX-3's being used as "B" cams at best....so what? If I have a budget to use a much more expensive camera like an F35 etc., then you bet and EX series or a 5D/7D (if f at all) would be my "B" cam. But if I didn't have that type of budget (which is 99.99% of the time)...a cam like the 5D/7D/EXs/etc. will be my A cam (that's just me). Like some others have pointed out...I find it funny that there are many professionals using these DSLRs on many of their projects. If they can have some confidence using them....then so can I. I just need to learn how to shoot.. :)

[Bruce Foreman]

Ian,

You have a lot of good points. What many fail to realize is that when something new or relatively new comes on the scene, some of those who don't "jump" to adopt it feel a bit "threatened" or get defensive when they don't have any real reason to be.

Everything has limitations, my whole career as a professional photographer I got along just fine by realizing the limitations of whatever gear I had to work with and did the best job I could within those limitations.

To me these DSLRs that do video do some things exceedingly well but I haven't tossed out my conventional video cameras. As far as resolution goes, I don't worry about the "numbers". I found 720p from the Canon T1i edited in nicely with 1920x1080 30p (even if in a 60i "wrapper") from my Canon HF100's.

What the resolution numbers don't take into account is the apparent strength in image tones that seems to result from a larger sensor.

I've always been one to "try something new" (this "old dog" can learn new tricks) but that doesn't mean everyone has to.

[Chris Barcellos]

I had been troubled by testing comments, and apparent difference in what we were seeing, and in what tests said. I tried my own tests and asks someone to look at it. Check out posts 24 through 27 over here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...ml#post1456338

At least one person with experience says it went as high as 800 lines...

I really think the poor testing in lines comes because everyone is shooting the camera with sharpening up quite a ways. I used a super flat picture style I found on line, which includes turning down sharpness. Check out the link above and see what you think.

[Ian G. Thompson]

Wow Chris....now that is an amazing eyeopener. I'm not an expert...but from what I am reading on those charts you posted it clearly shows around 800 lines of resolution. That's strange because Barry's test shows lower. But I think you might have found something here...which might explain why there are some videos I've watched that appears to be a heck of a lot sharper (or more detailed) than others....even using similar lens. Using superflat a "0" sharpness really seems like it helps.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Cris Daniels

But you cant possibly predict every situation where the aliasing and moire will rear its ugly head. I've had it show up in such a variety of shots from wildlife to indoor interviews.

That's true of most cameras -- there is always a potential for some artifact or anomaly. That's why it's a good idea to use monitors and review footage.

Only Nokia phone cams are point and shoot, anything beyond that should include some planning, adjusting, and manipulation of every element in the production, from camera settings to make up. That's why you often hear the phrase "It's just another tool."

I don't get the hatred for the 7d, unless you work for the competition.