The 7d is tempermental, but also forgiving

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

So just out of curiosity how would the footage from "The Ranch" be classified?

Narrative or Documentary?

Narrative. He controlled every shot and everything IN every shot. God it was beautiful.

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

And I'm pretty sure that if that footage was of a random farm in the midwest and was included in a documentary for PBS it would have NO problem passing any QC.

They ask. And your choice is either to tell the truth and have them tell you no, or to lie, hope they don't actually look too closely and maybe get it on. Or have them find out, by looking at it on a decent monitor, and you not be able to submit again.

When I told the local PBS producer I had a show I was putting together for them, and asked if their specs had changed after the digital switchover, she said no. Just follow Red Book. Simple as that. My EX1 passes for SD delivery and that is exactly what I am going to hand them. Unless I can get a NanoFlash in time and get a passable HD signal.

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

I bet if you told them that it was shot of F900 they couldn't tell the difference.

Why? Because you saw a 4Mbs proxy on Vimeo and you thought that looked great? You think that was a critical look? You think that's the same as some engineer putting your footage up on a calibrated 30" monitor and scopes?

Maybe you're right. Maybe the engineers at PBS and other broadcast stations don't know their business and can't tell. Maybe that $200k of gear they have in the room is just for looks. Hell, what do I know. Maybe I could just slip it by them. They probably won't notice.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

Details details details! Congrats! Also, I'd like to know what kind of feedback PBS gave with regards to their standards vis a vis the EX and Canon. I understand that the 5d hit the wall with the BBC and that the EX had it's ticket punched at Discovery and NGHD. First hand experiences would be interesting to hear.

Unless I can get the NanoFlash, it's SD delivery off the EX1. I didn't mention the Canon because I won't have it in time to even bother. My local PBS is still SD broadcast, so although I will create an HD master, I'll be making an SD master for them.

I'll have to get clarification on whether the 5D/7D will pass muster for HD broadcast. But since the published Red Book hasn't changed since 2007, I am going to bet no.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Ivan Pin

So, the difference in the dinamic range of Canon 7D:
- by DxO Labs - 11.7,
- by Barry Green - 10 (total) or 8 (usable).

Are a methodics is different ?

Must be; I don't know how they conducted their test but -- 2.5 stops different is ... unheard of. My test was conducted in two ways: I lit up a scene with way too much dynamic range (I think it was 14 stops of total dynamic range, if I remember properly) and shot it on the 7D and then checked what stayed in range and what strayed out of range, and came up with about 9 stops. But that was less scientific than I'd like, so I next got a Stouffer 41-step calibrated grayscale chart, which shows a series of translucent "steps"; each step is equivalent to 1/3 of a stop. You look to see how much you can discern, and when it can't discern any more, you stop counting. On the 7D, that was about 8.3 steps.

And my results correspond pretty much identically with those at dpreview.

So I don't know what DxO is doing differently. They got 10 stops of dynamic range out of a GH1, whereas I got 8.3. I don't know what their methodology is or how they're arriving at the different results.

[Ivan Pin]

Thanks Barry!

According dpReview all DSLRs are quite close in Dinamic Range at ISO 200:
- Nikon D300s usable range - 8.4,
- Canon 5D Mark II - 8.4,
- Pentax K-7 - 8.4,
- Canon 7D - 8.3,
- Lumix GH1 - 7.7.

Of course I wonder what the dynamic range would show EX1 on their methodology?
Probably no one will answer this question.

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Narrative. He controlled every shot and everything IN every shot. God it was beautiful.

Really? I know Mr Bloom is a talented DP with obviously a strong reputation with the likes of George Lucus, but unless he's got a direct line to God all of the footage I saw was natural light and shot very much the same way that I shoot documentaries.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Why? Because you saw a 4Mbs proxy on Vimeo and you thought that looked great? You think that was a critical look? You think that's the same as some engineer putting your footage up on a calibrated 30" monitor and scopes?

No. Because I have met Rick McCullum working on a project and he is not known as someone who is that easily impressed. Philip mentioned how impressed he and the others were who viewed this on a 40 FOOT SCREEN. Do you really think that ILM would even consider meeting with Philip if they didn't think mixing the cockpit footage from the 7D/5dMkII with the footage from the F35 wasn't going to work. Maybe you should just pass along the contact info of your PBS producer and Lucas can call him directly and save everyone a lot of time and money.

Also, the bureaucrats at PBS are not the only people who know how to use a waveform and vector scope, in fact I have a couple of those and a 50" calibrated monitor and I know how to use them.

And yes there are plenty of PBS stations that have $200K of worthless SD equipment. KQED wanted a BetaSP for the distribution of a project I produced for the Pacific Mountain Network. I had to go to the local broadcast museum to rent one.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

Really? I know Mr Bloom is a talented DP with obviously a strong reputation with the likes of George Lucus, but unless he's got a direct line to God all of the footage I saw was natural light and shot very much the same way that I shoot documentaries.



.

I would call it narrative too in the sense that Mr. Bloom had 100% discretion over which shot to use -- and presumably Perrone's point is that in a documentary you're often beholden to a particular "Live" event as it unfolds. If moire or some other unwanted artifact pops up you're stuck with it. Bloom can choose the perfect shot, but the guy filming a SEAL raid in Somalia is "In the moment" of a dynamic situation and has zero control with just moments to capture the story.

[Chuck Spaulding]

There are all kinds of documentaries and different ways to shoot them. Sure there are times when you have little or no immediate control over a situation, but rarely, if ever, have I not had the opportunity to go to get B-roll footage were I did have "enough" discretion over the shots I thought I needed.

On many of the shots at the Ranch, Philip got to choose the lens and he had a tripod, it didn't appear that he had much more than that. He also had to meet, and work with several people to demonstrate the capabilities of these camera's, its not like they hired him to simply photograph the ranch. I'm sure there was plenty of hospitality but I'm guessing he was pretty busy while he was there and might not of had as much "discretion" as you might think.

I'm not sure its mutually exclusive but I'd characterize that shoot more like a documentary than a narrative.

None of this matters, Perrone's point was that the 7D doesn't "measure up," it doesn't meet PBS's standards. Well I guess that depends on who's doing the shooting and who's doing the measuring. I get the impression from Philip's blog, and what I can see for myself, that he and others don't share that opinion.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

No. Because I have met Rick McCullum working on a project and he is not known as someone who is that easily impressed. Philip mentioned how impressed he and the others were who viewed this on a 40 FOOT SCREEN. Do you really think that ILM would even consider meeting with Philip if they didn't think mixing the cockpit footage from the 7D/5dMkII with the footage from the F35 wasn't going to work. Maybe you should just pass along the contact info of your PBS producer and Lucas can call him directly and save everyone a lot of time and money.

There are also other people who are extremely unimpressed with DSLR projected big screen images. Although this could depend on where you sit in the theatre, things tend to look better the further back you sit.

Most cockpit material shouldn't expose too many of the DSLR weaknesses. In the past, 16mm cameras have been used to shoot aerial or with the old gun cameras on specialised mounts to be cut with 35mm footage.

[Shawn Wright]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

I am very familiar with the "specs" of film. The great thing about film is you get to select wardrobe, set, lighting, and every other aspect of the frame. It is COMPLETELY under the control of the filmmaker in narrative film.

When shooting documentary you don't necessarily get that luxury. So sometimes things get ugly. If you take a look at the films released in the past few years that have been shot digitally (LucasFilm is big on that), you'll note that they still go to real film for certain sequences that just don't work on video at this point.

Why is it that if someone points out that a camera isn't perfect, despite the fact that it makes lovely pictures, that somehow you are bashing it? Or saying that it's faulty, or not good enough? I mean really. Every camera that I've owned has had issues. The hate spew that went around on the EX1 was incredible. The DVX made LOVELY pictures, but when folks pointed out that it juddered (and it does) they were dismissed as haters. They were simply pointing out the truth. Didn't stop me from buying either of those cameras. My Panasonic S-VHS camera had flaws. My Sony Hi8 camera had flaws, my Nikon 4s had an autofocus that you could time with a calender. My EOS-10s has a body made of paper it seemed. My Canon T70 was a dog. SO WHAT?!

Yes, the 7D makes lovely pictures. It really does. For many applications it's good enough. But for some, it simply is NOT. I don't make those rules. Discovery-HD, the BBC, PBS, and others make those rules and if we want to submit our work to them, we have to play by their rules. I am not George Lucas, and I can't put my work out to the world on my own money. So I have to follow the same rules that everyone else does.

Oh, and attend a film screening some time. You'd be *amazed* at what "film specs" are. Lucas himself was run up a flagpole for his digitally shot Star Wars episode.

I'm done with this.

Did not mean to upset your apple cart or drive you out of the conversation.

I hate it when people are such fanboys of Nikon over Canon or PC over Apple, it is stupid.

I see your point and have limited knowledge on this subject. I was simply engaging it to continue my learning.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

None of this matters, Perrone's point was that the 7D doesn't "measure up," it doesn't meet PBS's standards. Well I guess that depends on who's doing the shooting and who's doing the measuring. I get the impression from Philip's blog, and what I can see for myself, that he and others don't share that opinion.

The PBS Red Book is freely available for anyone to download here:

Red Book . Key Deliverables . PBS Online Web Site | PBS

The Section that pertains to Video quality is quoted below for convenience of the readers. Note that I will have to try to get an exception for the EX1 also (added emphasis is mine):

2. VIDEO

2.1 Video Image Quality

2.1.1 All programs must be produced with modern
component-digital acquisition and editing systems,
with careful attention to technical detail throughout
the acquisition and post-production process.

2.1.2 For standard definition, the image must have
the high quality image resolution associated with
modern 3-chip cameras and must not be derived from
a smaller image area (such as the widescreen mode in
some low cost DV cameras, which samples less than
480 vertical lines) except for special effects. The
CCD chips must have at least a 1/3” diagonal with a
minimum resolution of 640 x 480.
For high definition, the camera must use three CCD
chips, each with at least a 1/2” diagonal and a
minimum resolution of 1280 x 720.
For either standard or high definition under certain
circumstances such as breaking news or other
unscripted or unplanned events, less than full
broadcast quality equipment may be used. However,
efforts must be made to minimize the deficiencies
inherent in lower quality image acquisition. For
examples of procedures, see RP-1.

2.1.3 Programs submitted as "Digital Widescreen"
must be principally content that was originally
created in a minimum frame size of 720 x 480.

2.1.4 Programs submitted as "High Definition" must
be principally content that was originally created in a
minimum frame size of 1280 x 720.

2.1.5 The image must be free of aliasing such as the
artifacts associated with low cost scan conversion.

2.1.6 Compression artifacts must not be obvious
when viewed on a professional standard-definition
monitor for 4:3 shows, and when viewed on an
HDTV monitor for widescreen shows.

2.1.7 Except in the case of clear archival justification,
the image must be free of picture impairments
associated with legacy analog equipment: lag, smear,
scratches, dropouts, head switching, etc.

[Brian Luce]

Scratch the Red One from PBS as it's not 3 chip and not CCD. Who writes this stuff!

[Shawn Wright]

Great! That is funny.

[Brian Drysdale]

The info PDF I found on the site is dated 2007, which is pre RED One.

The BBC specs sheets do get up dated, but I suspect the current DSLRs would be counted as SD same as HDV and Super 16.

[Richard Gooderick]

All the broadcasters in the UK have similar specifications when they are commissioning.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Our local PBS station (KOPB) gives so many bits to the alternate SD channels that "HD" is a joke. Every scene change looks like a mosaic wipe.

I guess Frontline never read the Red Book... High Definition War Footage Taken with Canon 5D Mark II - Obama's War - Gizmodo

Still, while I really like the 5D2, no way is it the best cam for every situation. It rocks for narrative on a budget though.