Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

7d vs Red

This test is more impressive in showing off the RED PRO PRIMES.
The 35mm lens test is particularly striking. The lines and color are so distinct.
Quite impressed by how much is resolved both with the sensor and the lens.

Brian Timmons
britim-media
 
Joel Kaye said:
Mmm... maybe they are great but I've had Canon lenses on the 7D and the RED and a Canon lens on RED blows away the same lens on the 7D. I think this is more about the line skipping and codec.
Click to expand...

No doubt. I'm rocking a Birger Mount too.:iagree:
 
Brian Timmons said:
No doubt. I'm rocking a Birger Mount too.:iagree:
Click to expand...

Cool. I'm definitely sold on the whole SLR lens thing. I know cine guys generally don't believe it, but I've shot a fair amount of PL lenses and in some situations they can be a little easier to focus but in other situations they are tougher so I'm calling it a wash.

But 100% of the time my lens kit is LIGHTER. That's a big deal for me. Plus I can bring 7 lenses. I see other guys with really limited PL kits or one PL zoom that's kinda slow. Eh. I'll stick with my "amateur" setup.
 
What's your sharpness setting at on the 7D? It looks like 3 or 4? You should set it to no higher than 2. Mine's usually on 1. 0 if it's staying 1920, but if you're downrezing to SD, 2 can be alright. I'm inclined to believe the setting at 0 is how it comes into the camera, and anything above that in in-camera processing. In your shot you can see lots of haloing, that's where that comes from. At 0-2, the end result is fuzzier, but less "digital" looking.

Because of the abysmal resolution of the source file (compared to the Red or film, at least), using high-quality glass for sharpness on a canon is a waste of money. If you want focus marks or less breathing, that's one thing, but any kind of sharpness is eaten up by the line-skipping.
 
Maybe my eyesight is not that great but I reckon the 7D image (although its over exposed) looks just as good as the R1 (although its under exposed). I'm starting to think that some RED fans are trying to BS a little bit to try and compete with the little cams that are quickly taking their market over.
 
Vince Doran said:
Maybe my eyesight is not that great but I reckon the 7D image (although its over exposed) looks just as good as the R1 (although its under exposed). I'm starting to think that some RED fans are trying to BS a little bit to try and compete with the little cams that are quickly taking their market over.
Click to expand...

next...i assure you fathom wont gather favor from that post!!! makes it obvious that quality isn't a valued concern for
this outfit.You must not be a DP nor understand post capabilites with what you are seeing. first the tester said both were shot at the same exposure so under and over exposure are null points.As for your eyesight, well, i'd venture not to say anything about that one.
 
sergio arguello said:
next...i assure you fathom wont gather favor from that post!!! makes it obvious that quality isn't a valued concern for
this outfit.You must not be a DP nor understand post capabilites with what you are seeing. first the tester said both were shot at the same exposure so under and over exposure are null points.As for your eyesight, well, i'd venture not to say anything about that one.
Click to expand...

They are different sensors, so I'd at least argue that 'same exposure' is not always the same thing on every different camera, even if marked the same.

My problem with these comparisons is that a still difference is like 1/4th the story. You start moving these cameras and the Canon image degrades VERY rapidly. I wish more people would do short video comparisons with image setups like these, throw them both synced on a timeline and write the out together. Even if just a crop.

I use the 7D ALL the time, 10 hour shoot yesterday, and I can say without question that moire, aliasing and rolling shutter are such a HUGE problem that really dwarfs the softness and color issues.

I can also say, for the shoot I did yesterday, a few hours could have been shaved off using an S35 instead because I wouldn't have had to shoot so much extra coverage. Last night going through the footage, there were a handful of GREAT shoots ruined by aliasing.

I should start saving these aliasing and moire shots from our shoots and make a Moire demo reel for people to see. Some of them are so bad, it was unbelievable. You should get a free leprechaun with your 7D the number of rainbows it produces!
 
sergio arguello said:
next...i assure you fathom wont gather favor from that post!!! makes it obvious that quality isn't a valued concern for
this outfit.You must not be a DP nor understand post capabilities with what you are seeing. first the tester said both were shot at the same exposure so under and over exposure are null points.As for your eyesight, well, i'd venture not to say anything about that one.
Click to expand...
Well what can I say, I'm looking at these images as posted with no pixel peeping, just, as is on my 17' macbook pro and that is how I view 90% of all images and movies I look at. The nearest cinema is 3hrs drive away. These image tests are uploaded onto the internet and that is what I view. I haven't seen a cinema screen for 10yrs and could not care less if I never see one ever again. IMO most of the "Hollywood" camera experts are full of shit.
Edit: I have freelanced for every commercial TV station in Aus, mostly underwater surf stuff and ENG. I don't need the big screen stuff......just yet but I have some ideas for the future.
 
I did some matched ISO6400 exposures on M-X and 1DmkIII (stills mode), and they both came out very similar in terms of overall brightness. The M-X had lower noise and vastly superior dynamic range.

Graeme
 
Vince Doran said:
Well what can I say, I'm looking at these images as posted with no pixel peeping, just, as is on my 17' macbook pro and that is how I view 90% of all images and movies I look at. The nearest cinema is 3hrs drive away. These image tests are uploaded onto the internet and that is what I view. I haven't seen a cinema screen for 10yrs and could not care less if I never see one ever again. IMO most of the "Hollywood" camera experts are full of shit.
Click to expand...

Hopefully not the nice people at RED who are now based in Hollywood?

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
I did some matched ISO6400 exposures on M-X and 1DmkIII (stills mode), and they both came out very similar in terms of overall brightness. The M-X had lower noise and vastly superior dynamic range.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Which brings up an interesting point. If you have two cameras with different dynamic range, and different sensitivity, while some things in the scene might have the same brightness, if there is enough actual dynamic range in the scene, the camera with a lower dynamic range could have overblown areas. Also, given the noise floor, it could make some dramatic differences in perceived underexposure of certain areas as well.
 
I think the big difference between the DSLR cameras and RED cameras is the lack of latitude and obvious compression artifacts that the DSLR cameras have once you start color correcting the footage. I have seen this on 5DmkII and 7D cameras... the H.264 source footage (transcoded for post workflow) just falls apart quickly and you can see the rectangular compression areas as you push the look around.

I can take most RED footage to all kinds of extremes, and have the luxury of starting from a different RAW color/gamma space should I need too.
 
That is indeed correct Rick. It's what makes comparing cameras rather tricky. What I was trying to see was how the noise floor compared at ISO6400, more out of curiosity than anything as I thought the Canon would be better. It was not, which surprised me, but then the M-X is always surprising. Then I noticed how on the M-X, the highlights actually rolled off, through the FLUT, but because of the use of analogue (and digital) gain on the Canon, the highlights just clipped. That was not what I was testing, but it was immediately apparent when I viewed the images.

Graeme
 
Brandon Kraemer said:
I think the big difference between the DSLR cameras and RED cameras is the lack of latitude and obvious compression artifacts that the DSLR cameras have once you start color correcting the footage. I have seen this on 5DmkII and 7D cameras... the H.264 source footage (transcoded for post workflow) just falls apart quickly and you can see the rectangular compression areas as you push the look around.

I can take most RED footage to all kinds of extremes, and have the luxury of starting from a different RAW color/gamma space should I need too.
Click to expand...

Most of the time, we try and shoot in camera what we want for this exact reason. I can tell you that my work with green screens and rotoscoping with my 7D footage can be VERY rough. Macro blocking makes it VERY difficult to pull out the greens in footage with moving hair and such.

I think the best sales tool for wanting a RED is using a DSLR for serious projects. I mean, here I am USING a 7D making money on the weekends with it, and I cannot wait to not have to use it anymore. The 7D is allowing me to save up for a better camera and I am already half way to a S35 brain.

No amount of photo comparisons are EVER going to satisfy anyone. How many times are we going to hear:

1) You should have color corrected them to be the same
2) You should have used the same lens or adjusted lens for the crop factor
3) you should have cropped them 1:1
4) the compressions used at every level of getting them to the web.
5) Distance of objects, lights in the scene, etc
6) Camera positions

Every test will ALWAYS have to make some compromise because no two cameras are exactly the same between DSLR and RED. You are trying to answer 1000 questions with 1 image.

If someone really wants to know what to expect with a 7D or a 5D, buy or rent one. If you can afford a RED ONE I am sure you can get your hands on a 7D or 5D. If you SERIOUSLY are having problems convincing your customer of why they want your RED footage, do the tests yourself, come up with your own controlled demo reel that explains why their are issues. And what those issues are compared to what your client should expect.

When working with clients and our 7D (which they want over our HVX) this is what we tell them

1) We have to shoot every scene with at least 3 angles, and a few different DoF in case there are some alias / moire problems we cannot see in camera.

2) We cannot do fast motion with the camera. We explain all the issues with rolling shutter and how that limits the dynamic movements we can do. I use a stabilizer which removes horizontal jello effectively, it still means nothing too fast.

3) Anything requiring rotoscoping or green screening could require a reshoot. No matter how many things we shoot, some scenes are just hard to work with. Especially with things like hair.

4) Extra time is required to take all audio from an external recorder and sync it up with the audio in camera.

5) Final release is 720p only. We always downrez final projects to 720p to hide all the little aliasing all over the place. It's not gone, but seriously reduced.

We charge for the extra time it takes. From a business perspective, I am sure we make more with the 7D since it takes so much more effort on ALL fronts to get something usable. That said, I'd much rather make a little less money and have more free time to work on cool things than fixing or trying to cover my ass shooting SO MUCH EXTRA footage.

That's my opinion anyways :)
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Hopefully not the nice people at RED who are now based in Hollywood?

Graeme
Click to expand...
Graeme I appreciate what RED is doing and I congratulate you on your achievements so far, well done to you and all the RED team for breaking the barriers and producing some awesome camera gear.
 
Rick Burnett said:
I can tell you that my work with green screens and rotoscoping with my 7D footage can be VERY rough. Macro blocking makes it VERY difficult to pull out the greens in footage with moving hair and such.

I think the best sales tool for wanting a RED is using a DSLR for serious projects. I mean, here I am USING a 7D making money on the weekends with it, and I cannot wait to not have to use it anymore. The 7D is allowing me to save up for a better camera and I am already half way to a S35 brain.
Click to expand...

But the issue I have seen to date is Directors and production companies alike think DSLR's are great... another toy to break out on set. Then comes the issues in post that no one thinks about including big problems with any kind of effects, a real limit to what can be done in grading before technical issues arise, uber long transcoding times, etc...

It's like the prosumer equipment industry and the "good enough" philosophy have largely replaced the fundamentals of quality and workflow I have worked with for a long time. Sure, DSLRs are leaps and bounds better than DV/HDV... but it's still not professional grade, it doesn't do everything Directors and Producers insist it can. I'd rather work with 1080 4:2:2: P2 footage than 5D/7D. Of course, Varicam isn't much better. The only upside I see is the ability to jam the camera into small spaces.
 
It's hard to counter all the hype because to some degree, it also means raining on people's parades, dampening their enthusiasm... and never underestimate enthusiasm in the market.

On the other hand, it's important to not ignore basic facts as long as you present them in relative and practical terms. If you are only shooting for iPhone release, for example, your technical requirements are going to be a bit lower than for cinema release. 720P/1080i broadcast is another distribution market with their own standards, and even there, you have some flexibility depending on shot duration, level of post work needed, etc.

However, I do find it ironic that many people in the industry who nitpicked the Red One to death seem to be embracing DSLR video without reservations. I suppose to some degree it's because the manufacturers of DSLR's have never pushed their video features that heavily (probably because they are well-aware of their shortcomings), so there hasn't been a kneejerk pushback due to aggressive marketing, the hype has mostly been generated among users (which has created a kneejerk pushback in skeptical people like me...) It just seems that some people are pointing out the dust speck in Red's eye while ignoring the log in Canon's eye, to use biblical analogies.

I mean, just look at the difference here between the 7D and HMC40:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=186334

It seems that for some people, getting the shallow-focus look trumps all the technically-better aspects of these smaller HD camcorders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top