Thoughts after my first "real" shoot with the T2i.
 

After getting used to the camera for the last couple of weeks, I finally took it out on an actual client shoot yesterday.

I used it as my B cam against my Z7U and worked on the footage last night. All in all I'm very pleased with how it performed. Because I was running Bloom's recommended settings I had to crank up the sharpness in post and had to spend some time with the saturation and contrast to get it to match the Z7U.

But, it was worth the effort, the footage looks great. I can't wait for the client to see it.

One thing that did throw me a bit was right when the client came in and saw it he said, "That's a DSLR! What's it doing shooting video?" I told him it was the new technology and we're testing it out to see how it performs. It was an extra item, not covered in the deal so he was getting it for free.

But I was glad to have had all the other tons of gear I had there which made the shoot look professional. I can see there will be some pushback from clients if you try to convince them to shoot the entire thing with a DSLR, until they see the results of course.

Unfortunately the subject material is private otherwise I'd post some examples from the shoot, but the bottom line is that it worked very well and I'm excited to continue to use it on projects.

Z5 & 7d
 

I'm using a similar setup

Z5 is A-Cam, 7D is B-Cam.

I've only used it on 2 weddings at the weekend, so not editied yet (transcoding the footage as I type this)

From what I've seen so far, the 2 cams match pretty well in terms of low light.

iso 1600, shutter 50 and f 2.8 on the 7D seems to match up with the Z5 wide open and 6db gain.

Colours on the 7d were richer, even in the neutral settings and tweeken bloom settings.

My B-cam to my Z5 used to be an fx7, and after only 2 days of shooting with the 7D, I can say that in my opinion, the 7D out does the FX7 no contest (appart from the audio, recording limit etc)

I'm liking the 7D so much, I'll prob get a 550d / t2i to use as a C-Cam (so it would kinda replace my HC-1)

Keep posing your thoughts on mixing / matching the z7 / t2i. I'll do the same with my z5 7d.

Cheers

James

You like it better if you have a F1.4 lens, F 2.8 is just barely making it for weddings.

It's size is a double edged sword - great to move and run and gun - bad for impressing people.

Which is why I'm tricking the thing out with as many ad-on gizmos as humanly possible - it needs to pass the "Keifer" test.

john

i can second that.

I've got the 50mm f1.4 , low light capability as excellent, just need to really pay attention to the focus

James,

What project settings are you using in CS3 and what are you using to convert footage?

Peter

Further thoughts:

The angle I shot the T2i with I also used my Z7U for one of the segments. So I've got the same shot on both cameras to compare to. I didn't have this Z7U footage captured when I made my initial post.

What I've discovered is I do not like the amount of sharpness I have to increase on my T2i footage to get it as sharp (or even close to as sharp) as the Z7U footage. On its own the T2i footage looks great but when side by side with the Z7U is very obvious how soft it is.

Note: This is entirely because I had sharpness cranked all the way down on the T2i, focus was spot on.

So my thought now is that when I'm shooting with the T2i to match a sharp video camera I probably need to put sharpness back up to center. If I'm shooting something with the T2i on its own then I would use the softer settings.

Will need to do some testing to see how it compares when sharpness is turned back up, but those are my thoughts thus far.

Is it possible to show some examples, Bryan?

How soft is soft? The examples I've seen, the 7D/550D is pretty sharp... although it's said that real film is also softer compared to video. Or... why homevideo looks like homevideo, and real film like Hollywood.

Unfortunately I cannot post examples from this shoot, but if/when I do some testing I will.

Yes, the T2i CAN be quite sharp, but I when I shot with it the other day I was using Bloom's settings and had the sharpness cranked all the way down. Which is intended to generate a more film like appearance, and it does, but I didn't consider how different it would be when matching to straight video.

Some of those settings with sharpness all they way down and flat is for you to grade and add sharpness back in post, my feeling is too shoot as close as possible to the way you want since in camera 14bit processing is better than post NLE 8bit processing but that is just me, I'm sure other will dissagree but either way, the DSLR video at the moment will not be as sharp in detail resolving as HD camera like your Z7 or XH-A1, EX1, but if you are shooting weddings with low/available light and if you have F1.4 lens it will be so much better because it has less noise, brighter and of course shalow dof that no 1/3 chip camera can do.

I tried to measure the resolution of my T2i, but aliasing made it all but impossible. I estimate the resolution to be about 700TVL which is closer to what you would get with a 720P camera than a 1080 camera.

Just did a very quick test and it seems clear to me that to match my Z7U sharpness needs to be dialed all the way up to 7. Even then it's not *quite* there.

What would the difference be, doing it on the camera or doing it in post?

Yike, you don't want to do that, the camera just don't have the details, so don't try to make it something it is not, adding sharpness is just an edge contrast enhancement, you will see serious halo artifacts around the edge at that level.

If its done on the camera there is no "undo" right, that's why I was wondering why not just save it for post, or is it just to decrease processing time by using the camera function?

At least in this case I prefer the sharpening done by the camera versus post. But only because it's so extreme to match the Z7. In actuality I don't see using both these cameras together much. There's such a clear difference in look that it will probably generally one or the other depending on the material.

What done is done you can not undo, so with me I like to get it as close as the way I want in camera, but some people like everything flat so they can work more in post.

If you mix them at the same time, I would use the Canon for closeup shot so you will have nice shalow dof and use the Z7 for wide shots with deep dof then it will be totally a different look.

Yes, that's what I did in this case.

It would be good to see some comparison footage of the T2i and Z7U so that we can really get a feel as to what you are explaining in terms of the difference of sharpness.

I posted some examples of the T2i and an EX1 on my blog:
XDCAM-USER.com Canon T2i, first impressions, initial tests (frame grabs and video supplied).

Yeah, I should be able to pull it out again next week on some shoots and get some examples that I can put online, but Alister's post shows pretty much what I saw.

Pfew, Alister. This makes me think twice (make that tripple) before taking the plunge and buying a T2i or 7D...

You do get a lot of camera for the money, it takes great stills and can be used for excellent timelapse!
In my opinion, IF you soften the image with a bit of diffusion you can prevent aliasing, but the camera as a 1080P camera is soft to start with. If you think of it more as a high end 720P camera you will find the resolution acceptable (you still need to shoot at 1080P). It's OK for web videos and other 720P shoots, and the shallow DoF can be very nice. But to really make it work well you do need to spend a fair bit of money on a range of fast lenses, viewfinder loupe, microphone (better still audio recorder) shoulder stock etc etc and this raises the true cost to something closer to a dedicated mid range 1080P video camera. Even after spending the money it still has limitations including short clips, a lot of jello, aliasing and far from ideal ergonomics.
IF super shallow DoF is your holy grail then it's very hard to beat. It's also very good at shooting in very low light. But to get the kind of images that Philip Bloom produces you will have to work hard and you must expect to get back from a shoot to find some shots spoilt by aliasing.
If you do think of it as a DSLR that also does video, then it's very good, but if your looking for an all-round HD camera you may be disappointed. Having played with a 7D and 5D Mk2 it's video performance is very, very close. It would be hard to tell the difference between the T2i and 7D, they both have the same issues and same DoF.

I'm not saying don't buy, just be aware of the issues and think about what it is that you really need.

Difficult, difficult. Although it's strangely funny to see most 'wow'-videos are made in low-light or with super-shallow DoF, now I know why. But I still remember the first Ray Roman 7D wedding video, filmed in broad daylight, in which the sharpness (!) combined with the shallow DoF really stunned me.

Don't know if it's true, but I still do think that the subject in focus is perceived sharper due to the out of focus background, although when directly compared to a videocamera the image as a whole is softer. In the past everybody with a camcorder striving for the infamous filmlook was trying to unsharpen their footage, with diffusion filters etc. So now with the DSLRs you've got 24P, shallow DoF and a soft overall image: that is the holy grail!

And even if I'm watching Hollywood DVD's (okay, SD-quality ofcourse) it doesn't look supersharp to me. Maybe HD/Bluray changed the whole game, but as for sharpness, I think that's not a real problem for using a DSLR as an allround camera, because the obvious film(style) look is going to be a stunner everytime. Just take a look at the weddingfilms by Ray Roman, or that documentary in Iraq or Afghanistan; filmed in broad daylight, absolute stunning footage. So in here, the beauty once again is in the eye of the beholder.

Still, I agree that aliasing is a big problem, although I find it strange it never really hit me before as with your stills now. And even then... it's a big dilemma: go for the absolute killer film-look, and live with the aliasing problems... or perhaps just wait a little bit more...

Still I seriously consider just to buy the T2i, invest in good lenses, audio equipment, follow focus etc, learn to use it well and just hope Canon goes on improving or evolving their DSLR's for video use and let's pray they don't come up with something like your EX1 which would make all my equipment useless.

But coming from the humble HV30, the T2i is a major step up, in some aspects I'm already beginning to feel 'constrained' by the HV30. It's a great little allround camera, but even with the 25p (PAL), I feel it will be blown away by the T2i when I'm going for the film look.

For the cost the T2i is insane. That's really all there is to it.

And since pretty much everything I shoot is not for broadcast my clients value the sweet film look over issues of aliasing. In fact I'd bet 9 out of 10 clients couldn't point it out if they tried. But all of them will drolol over the DOF the T2i gives.

Look what this guy's been doing with just a HV30 and a DIY 35mm adapter... with enough lights AND lots of talent...


Could this be the best of both worlds, Alister?

I reckon it's possible to buy a 35mm adapter for around $300-400 (about the same as the Tamron 17-50), about the same for the lights (this bloke built them himself). So then I'm set for the same price as the T2i, would need a follow focus anyway.

Forget the technology and consider why that video is good? It's well lit, very high contrast with strong deep blacks and vivid colors, creatively shot with some nice tracking shots, it's well thought out with shots cutting together well and a great music track (depending on your taste). Those are the primary reasons why that video looks good. The cinemascope aspect ratio gives it a film feel, much like 16:9 used to differentiate from 4:3. It's not all shallow DoF and the DoF is only a very small part of what makes it look good.

One of the things that DoF adapters and DSLR's tend to do is to make you think about the shot, simply because compared to a dedicated camcorder it isn't really "point and shoot" anymore. If you used any moderately good video camera to do that shoot and took the care and attention into the shots that has obviously gone into the clip, there is no reason why your videos won't look good.

Until the 70's movies were very rarely shot with shallow DoF, many of the very greatest movies excelled due to the amazing detail in the scenes, epic films such as Lawrence of Arabia for example. Then in the 80's the use of available light became trendy and this forced film makers to shoot with wide open, fast lenses.

When you go to a cinema to watch a film, you look at an image that is 30ft across, maybe more. A slight difference between in focus and out of focus is very obvious, scale that down to a small screen and much of the subtlety is lost. To compensate some people making clips that will primarily be viewed on the web or small screens are using massively shallow DoF to emulate on a small screen, the way a film looks on a big cinema screen. Show that web clip on a big screen and it's going to look very different.

I would love to be able to pick and choose my DoF, but not at the expense of image sharpness or other artifacts. It will come, probably sooner rather than later, maybe even as soon as NAB. If you have a spare $800 then the T2i is a nice toy, but just remember that it's not the camera that makes a movie, it's the crew.

I don't think aliasing will be a issue in a years time. When the EX1 was launched everyone was complaining about the rolling shutter and partially exposed flashes now it totally acceptable. Aliasing will also be accepted and film makers will concentrate more on producing quality work rather than worrying about technical details. Every single video I see lately all look the same, out of focus then in focus, hunting for focus. Hopefully in time professionals will learn that hunting for focus is like zooming. I'm looking forward to seeing more professional work done.

for the rolling shutter there is a nice after effects work around to be found on the web.
Bending can be a problem as latitude sometimes, ok. Light to work out carefully will do the trick. Even with my aaton 16mm most work was done before the shot, so nothing changed so much. No telecine no wait time, a better workflow that is the great plus, some hitches as Canon wil not blow all his comcoders to the wind, but to pull focus and use literally quite any glass u can afford or will, opens a totally new way to low budget gorilla film, sexy.

Aliasing will never be acceptable. Would you seriously find rainbow colored brick work, wood or fabrics acceptable? Apart from the obvious visual artifacts such as colored moire making it impossible to shoot anything with a fine texture there are also the high frequency edge effects that have a serious negative impact on codecs. Alias artifacts travel in the opposite direction to any motion in a scene and this plays hell with codecs. These artifacts can pass through much of the production chain un-noticed only to re-appear at a later stage. Skew or flash band is entirely visible, it won't change or get worse through the post production process and only affects the look of the image. Aliasing not only effects the look but can have a serious detrimental effect on the ability to edit or encode the material. That's why the BBC didn't go any further than the resolution test with the 5D Mk2. The aliasing was so bad it was dismissed for broadcast use without any further tests.
In a properly designed video camera it's easy to eliminate aliasing by fitting an optical low pass filter. You simply can't do this with a hybrid camera that's sub sampling the sensor without destroying it's stills performance.

Canon have a dilemma. At the moment they can't read an entire 20 megapixel sensor fast enough for video. If they fit a low pass filter for video they will cripple the photo performance and the likelihood is that the pictures will end up softer than they are already. If they produce a dedicated large sensor video camera it's going to sell in much smaller volumes than a mass market DSLR. The cost to produce a big, fast sensor and the small sales volume is likely to put the price through the roof.

Of course your last statement is absolutely true, but I think of the T2i/7D as a powerful instrument more than just a 800-dollar-toy.

Don't underestimate the power of DoF, even if it becomes more subtle when seen on a smaller screen; of course you know its a very powerful tool to direct viewer's attention, but the psychological effect is also huge. People (viewers) associate DoF with cinema, with Hollywood. Pinsharp 50i/60i footage with little or no DoF at all is associated with news items, cheap TV-shows or soaps. Recently, someone remarked that cellphone-video (uploaded to Youtube) is associated with riots and other chaotic events in faraway countries, and it's being used by television crews already: protesters against the healthcare-law in the USA were filmed with cellphone-cams, which gave a chaotic, renegade impression, while those in favor of the bill were filmed with regular TV-crews, with nice, smooth imagery. Could be the other way around, but you know what I mean.

So technology goes a long way, although what's trendy now may become obsolete in a few years. It's what Nicholas is saying: intentional focus hunting is becoming the new zooming. In cinema, crane shots used to be the most epic shots you could imagine, until every major TV-show (like Extreme Makeover etc) uses cranes now and the effect diminishes.

I agree with you it's the crew that makes a movie; I recently made a small album with photographs I took with my iPhone and a simple Toycamera app... people couldn't believe me, thought it had to be a DSLR and lots of photoshop-work. And personally, I'm still learning, everytime my movies are looking a little bit better. Colorgrading for example, I just started doing it, and I think it really improves my footage.

But still, I do think the tools are also very important. Of course you can make a great movie with just your iPhone-cam, but DSLR, even with all its shortcomings, opens up amazing new possibilities...

...or perhaps it's just an easy way to get the wow-reaction from your viewers, until everybody is used to it and we have to think of other ways to impress our viewers again.

But if there's one thing you accomplished, I'm really thinking hard: do I really, really need this T2i to achieve the filmlook I'm searching for, maybe yes, maybe not...

Alister is funny. On one hand, here and on his blog he professes not to be anti-Canon. But then he tosses out broad insults like calling the T2i an 800 dollar toy. It's difficult to take you seriously when you say stuff like that, Alister.

I owned an EX1 since the first month they were available in the US, and I couldn't agree more that there are a number of things the EX1 does better than my new T2i. I used the EX1 up and down pro sports sidelines, took it into freezing weather, and made a decent chunk of change with it. And when I went to work for someone else doing video, that's exactly what I made sure we bought in-house (EX1R, technically).

But there are a couple reasons I just sold my personal EX1 and swapped it for a T2i -- and they have nothing to do with toys.

First of all, I got a tricked out T2i package for a grand less than I got selling an EX1 with 274 hours on it. I picked up the T2i, a Canon 50mm 1.4, a Canon L 24-70mm 2.8, a high-end flash, extra batteries, a new bag, and more. In other words, there's no doubt the T2i is cheaper to set up, even with elite glass.

Secondly, I love that only $800 of my money is sunk into the actual body while the glass I bought will retain value for many years. Try finding either of my new lenses used for less than $50-$100 off their new cost (and if you see one you should buy it!). Unlike the EX1, my money isn't all tied up into a single-body cam that can't be upgraded in pieces. So when Canon (or somebody else) releases an even better body, I can buy it without tossing all my glass. And if I do want to sell my glass, it retains an even bigger percentage of its value than my EX1 did. Basically, I no longer feel like I am tied down to one big, expensive camera. Instead, I have all of these individually valuable parts that are much easier to upgrade or sell.

Third, I am definitely only doing personal stuff on my own time these days, and that means it's intended for web use. Reducing aliasing is just not a priority like DoF is online, especially if you want to avoid an amateur feel. So even if there were concerns about what happens when you blow up the footage, that's not what I'm worried about.

But hold on, I am not conceding the argument that DSLRs should be "web only," either. I don't know if Alister has seen the 2010 Zacuto shootout yet (The Great Camera Shootout 2010 | Zacuto), but the DSLRs are holding their own against film on latitude. It'll be interesting to see what they say on aliasing as they release more footage, but they're analyzing it on the big screen and it looks darn good.

Furthermore, we can forget about tests -- a film shot on the 7D called Tiny Furniture just won the top jury prize at South By Southwest's film festival: Film Shot on 7D Wins Best Film at SXSW Film Festival – Royal Galactic Cinema So, uh, I hate to break it to Alister, but people using DSLRs are actually winning major narrative film prizes when their work is being shown on the big screen.

Reason #4 I went T2i: space at home (I live in NYC, it's at a premium) and portability in life. Try walking around with an EX1 and not making people around you uncomfortable. ;)

The final reason I went with the T2i is that I think I need to be a better photographer to take my video shooting to the next level, and I'm a big believer in having one device that can do many things (see: iPhone). So it was the right fit for me.

Subjectively, my personal criteria are better met by the T2i -- especially the arty DoF and getting out of the business of having an expensive, single-body cam instead of a modular system of upgradable parts (of which the body is one of the cheapest and easiest to replace in the future). Again, I went with an EX1 at my job because that was the best fit there, but that doesn't make it the best objective choice by a long shot.

On the objective front, though, people are winning big awards showing their work on the 7D on movie screens at huge festivals. And the T2i has basically the same shooting ability as the 7D. Only you can decide if it's right for your needs (why not rent one first?), but this s*** works, people.

There are some very insightful and real comments about film making being made here. As Alister said; it takes a crew, but this is only one true statement about a multifaceted process. The primary concern here I think is about the T2i's performance and how it matches up to some of the more recognized or higher class cameras. The concern for people buying any camera is what they will NOT be getting in terms of performance and how this may effect their product. Which of course brings me to the comment that every piece of equipment should be best selected to execute the job at hand, just as you choose your golf clubs, or in this case a better analogy should be your paint brush in order to paint the picture that you want. But the medium which you will be painting on is the concern here and that medium is the canvas on which your paint will be applied - the camera, and in the case of film, the paint is light.

So what are we looking for in a good canvas..?

I hope that didn't confuse anyone..

Sorry to chop your post down a bit but these are the particular statements that ring true with me!

While I won't ever totally give up a true video camera, the DSLR is now a vital part of my kit and my clients are simply speechless when they see what comes out of my "toy"
There are a lot of issues that don't have good solutions right now but my mind set is that the T2i has one purpose...make killer b-roll. Which it does amazingly well.

I too have sought out the "good glass" which means it'll be around longer than anything else I own equipment-wise.

The Zacuto shootout is something the whole production world should be watching and taking notes on. There's the scientific part but when I hear the caliber of people involved say how amazed they are with the whole lot of DSLRs...makes me want to jump for joy!

I have never really gotten into photography and since getting the T2i, it has added a whole new skill which I am constantly learning and challenging myself with. And yes, I really do think it's making me a better videographer. And certainly has helped my understanding of light. I'm actually embarrassed to look at some of my produced vids from a year ago knowing what I know now! And those vids always exceeded my client's wishes quality-wise!

I make the comparison to my previous life as an audio engineer/producer back when analog 2" tape was the preferred medium and editing meant you could literally cut yourself if you weren't careful!
Coming up through the ranks at that time and learning those skills made me a much better engineer once digital came into existence.

Having to go back and learn film-style techniques, lenses and focus manually is fantastic and will make us all better regardless of the technical issues that seem to be getting the attention here.

My clients dictate if what I'm doing is good or not and once again, they keep coming back for more! And they're telling their friends which is keeping me very busy!

Having watched the Zacuto shootout I was not particularly impressed. It asks more questions than it answers.
Why are all the wide scenes at the opening with brickwork in the background de-saturated? Is it just for aesthetic reasons or is it because the walls are covered in multicolored moire? Why didn't they get the guy with the striped shirt to change his shirt so that he doesn't look like some kind of electronic disaster scene whenever he moves thanks to extreme aliasing?
The conclusion from the first part of the shootout is that film has better latitude than DSLR's, but in a low key scene the DSLR's fair well. No surprise there, but why does it take them 30 mins to tell us?

I'm sorry but IMHO the Canons are not there yet. That's why I regard them as toys, something to be played with, experimented with, a learning tool. When you can point them at any subject and shoot without worrying about aliasing, that's when they will move from the realm of toys to serious tools. That's an opinion shared by the BBC as well. I've said this before, the problem with aliasing is that it can sneak through your production chain largely un-noticed only to re-appear when you least expect it. Alias artifacts move in the opposite direction to actual image motion and this really screws up codecs. The Canons are also extremely soft, measured resolution is way down at around 650TVL, I know of many SD cameras that get very close to that! I am quite sure that very soon we will see a big sensor video camera that gives us the choice to shoot with a shallow DoF but without the aliasing, extreme jello or overheating. At that point your investment in hybrid DSLR's may not look quite so wise. If it's Canon that pull it off then your lenses may be fine or you may be able to adapt your lenses to fit whatever camera it is that comes out (scarlet??).

Yes movies get made with odd camera choices, take "Blair Witch" a massive success, but I don't see that many movies being shot with DV camcorders. I'm sure we will see a couple of DSLR movie's but just because someone chooses to play with one doesn't make it the be all and end all.

When I invest in a piece of professional kit I expect it to make me money for at least 2 years. I don't see the current Canon DSLR's being used as pro tools in 2 years time. Sure the 550D is very cheap, that's why I got one, to play with, experiment with, but IMHO there is no way it can replace a dedicated HD camcorder as you simply can't shoot in focus textures, patterns and lines, they lack in resolution anyway so adding diffusion to reduce the aliasing just makes a soft image even softer. Sure if you avoid all these things you can make pretty web videos and if that's your aim, go ahead and play.

So are you saying that anyone that points out the rather serious, well documented flaws in the Canon DSLR cameras can not be taken seriously? Is this what much of the Canon hype is all about........

If I DONT use one, will I no longer be taken seriously as a film maker? If I dare to say that the latest fad is flawed, will no one respect me any more? If I don't say that DSLR's are the best video cameras ever made, will I look a fool?

I suspect that there are a lot of people out there that have bought in to the Canon hype, purchased a DSLR and a few lenses and then found that they can't actually use it for what they wanted, but are afraid to say anything against Canon DSLR's as they don't want to loose face.

There are 2 type of DSLR user, the one that see alisasing and moire problem and thinks that it is a toy and dismised it as a tool but the funny thing is aliasing and moire problem have been report from day 1 and still you go out and buy it, the other type of users knew about the problem but can see beyond it and see the strong point of the camera and use it and overcome its weakness and willing to work around it and are making money with their new toy, glass half full or half empty, who gives a what the BBC thinks, they are not writing my paycheck.

Actually, I was very clear about what I was saying: if you call the T2i an 800 dollar toy, which you did, it is hard to take you seriously in the sense of being an objective observer. The data and concerns you discuss are valid, but conclusions like "800 dollar toy" are not. And now you're positing some pseudo conspiracy theory in which Canon and, I dunno, the shooter coolkids mafia, are teaming up to prevent a grassroots backlash from bubbling up? Come on, man.

A 7D film won SXSW. It's the same tech as the T2i with a sturdier body and few more settings options. Surely you can see that these are more than toys. They are hardly right for everyone or every situation, but let's try and stay away from insulting dismissals and conspiracy theories. *If* you want to be taken seriously. ;)

If you regard having to ensure that you never have anything with texture, detail or a pattern , even jewelry, teeth or skin pores in focus as an acceptable limitation then that is your choice. Myself, I find that just too restrictive. I purchased a 550d knowing it would alias, but was led to belive through all the hype that it is a minor issue. I thought I would be able to work around it, but I can't, because basically if it's in focus it aliases and I hate out of focus pictures.
There was recently one highly regarded cinematographer complining about how he was struggling to get repeatable skin tones on some faces, the reason... Beard stubble and skin texture causing aliasing that was shifting the skin hue. The workaround.. Shoot slightly out of focus. I bet that looked really good on the big screen.
Surely the reason for using a DSLR is to try to get a film look, yet electronic edges, stair stepping straight lines, flickering detail, moire etc couldn't look any more like video.