Opinions wanted from those of you who's 7d footage ends up on Blue Ray.. at DVinfo.net

Ger Griffin · January 27th, 2010, 04:50 PM

Just wondering how many of you end with your 7d footage on Blue Ray and how you think it looks. Im starting to prepare for HD next season and would appreciate some expert opinions on the look of this HDSLR footage on BR.

Would it impress a client or make them ask whats wrong with the footage? .....

Marty Hudzik · January 27th, 2010, 09:10 PM

Wow. Why would they ask what's wrong? I can say that my limited time with the 7d has blown me away from a cinematic point of view. The imagery is so much more filmic and has depth like a well made movie. However, I can honestly say that the footage does not blow my mind as being super high resolution mind blowing HD. I have an XLh1 that when I shoot in 60i created footage that looks like Discovery channel HD. I know HDV compression and all that measurebating tells me that it is not as good, and I know that too. But it has that kind of "wow" factor. People just say "darn that looks super HD!".

The 7D does not blow my mind like that. It looks more like a 16mm filmstock to me. It still looks clean and it looks great but it does not scream "look how high res I am!". At least in my opinion.

NOw when I watch a show like law & order on NBC I notice both. I notice the great shallow DOF that cinematic dramas often have. I also notice that the actor that is is focus is like mind blowingly sharp but the background is blurred like a film.

So far, im my 6 days, I just don't see it being that sharp. The 18megapixel stills are...but the video is not.

If I had to compare it to anything it reminds me a bit of the HVX200. It is an HD camera but somehow the images just don't look as razor sharp as an H1 or even an HD100. But it has that mojo or filmic color curve or gamma.

Well the 7d has that, and it has the DOF of a real 35mm movie camera and it is great in low light. Plus it shoots 60fps 720P for great slo-mo.

Does this help any?

Also, as I get better with the camera I may change my opinion about it's sharpness. So far I have been filming with the LCD only and I may be missing my focus by a little too.

Good Luck.

Marty Hudzik · January 27th, 2010, 09:14 PM

Let me add this.

You need to know what your client wants. If you are shooting a documentary or something it may be better suited for a traditional cam.

If the client wants a cinematic commercial or look, this camera should blow their mind as it can rival real film cameras and much more expensive HD cameras.

So if you know your clients needs, this should not be an issue.

Ger Griffin · January 28th, 2010, 01:43 PM

Hey Marty,
thanks for your input.
Yes are on the right track in relation to what I am talking about.
Im basically wondering if the aliasing and other artefacts within the footage
get emphasised more after being encoded to a blue ray compatible format (mpeg2?)

If the finished article looks as good on HDTV via blue ray as it appears on the pc monitor.
I wouldnt be too concerned about the picture being soft but worry about edge detail and horizontal lines, moire etc showing up appearing way stronger.
I know the simple answer is to test it but i dont have the facilities the moment.

Mauricio DelaOrta · January 28th, 2010, 04:08 PM

I burned a test BD disc a couple of weeks ago, and I can tell you that on a good monitor, it looks just like what you saw on your PC.

Also, in my experience h.264 looks sharper than MPEG2 HD, but the latter also has some advantages over the former (like more precise pausing, faster and more compatible encoding, etc). It is a matter of testing both to decide what's best for each project.

My 2 cents :)

Mauricio

January 27th, 2010, 04:50 PM	#1
Ger Griffin Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Ireland Posts: 579	Opinions wanted from those of you who's 7d footage ends up on Blue Ray.. Just wondering how many of you end with your 7d footage on Blue Ray and how you think it looks. Im starting to prepare for HD next season and would appreciate some expert opinions on the look of this HDSLR footage on BR. Would it impress a client or make them ask whats wrong with the footage? .....

January 28th, 2010, 04:08 PM	#5
Mauricio DelaOrta Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Mexico City Posts: 49	I burned a test BD disc a couple of weeks ago, and I can tell you that on a good monitor, it looks just like what you saw on your PC. Also, in my experience h.264 looks sharper than MPEG2 HD, but the latter also has some advantages over the former (like more precise pausing, faster and more compatible encoding, etc). It is a matter of testing both to decide what's best for each project. My 2 cents :) Mauricio __________________ o--------------------------o Life is short.. Live it! Mauricio

January 27th, 2010, 09:10 PM	#2
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Wow. Why would they ask what's wrong? I can say that my limited time with the 7d has blown me away from a cinematic point of view. The imagery is so much more filmic and has depth like a well made movie. However, I can honestly say that the footage does not blow my mind as being super high resolution mind blowing HD. I have an XLh1 that when I shoot in 60i created footage that looks like Discovery channel HD. I know HDV compression and all that measurebating tells me that it is not as good, and I know that too. But it has that kind of "wow" factor. People just say "darn that looks super HD!". The 7D does not blow my mind like that. It looks more like a 16mm filmstock to me. It still looks clean and it looks great but it does not scream "look how high res I am!". At least in my opinion. NOw when I watch a show like law & order on NBC I notice both. I notice the great shallow DOF that cinematic dramas often have. I also notice that the actor that is is focus is like mind blowingly sharp but the background is blurred like a film. So far, im my 6 days, I just don't see it being that sharp. The 18megapixel stills are...but the video is not. If I had to compare it to anything it reminds me a bit of the HVX200. It is an HD camera but somehow the images just don't look as razor sharp as an H1 or even an HD100. But it has that mojo or filmic color curve or gamma. Well the 7d has that, and it has the DOF of a real 35mm movie camera and it is great in low light. Plus it shoots 60fps 720P for great slo-mo. Does this help any? Also, as I get better with the camera I may change my opinion about it's sharpness. So far I have been filming with the LCD only and I may be missing my focus by a little too. Good Luck.

January 27th, 2010, 09:14 PM	#3
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Let me add this. You need to know what your client wants. If you are shooting a documentary or something it may be better suited for a traditional cam. If the client wants a cinematic commercial or look, this camera should blow their mind as it can rival real film cameras and much more expensive HD cameras. So if you know your clients needs, this should not be an issue.

January 28th, 2010, 01:43 PM	#4
Ger Griffin Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Ireland Posts: 579	Hey Marty, thanks for your input. Yes are on the right track in relation to what I am talking about. Im basically wondering if the aliasing and other artefacts within the footage get emphasised more after being encoded to a blue ray compatible format (mpeg2?) If the finished article looks as good on HDTV via blue ray as it appears on the pc monitor. I wouldnt be too concerned about the picture being soft but worry about edge detail and horizontal lines, moire etc showing up appearing way stronger. I know the simple answer is to test it but i dont have the facilities the moment.