Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Canon 7D looks quite Nice

I don't think that lens thing fully explains Canon's actions.

The fact that Canon failed to realize there would be interest in a full-frame 35mm sensor that shoots 1080p in a compact body with L-series glass is all the evidence we need that their executives and decision makers were completely out to lunch. Apparently, from things I've read, Canon execs were "shocked" at the positive reaction to the 5D2. Really???? They could have invited a couple of members of this forum to lunch for an hour, and we could have told them that the market was literally drooling at the prospects of large-sensor digital cinema cameras with interchangeable lenses and good prices.
 
Chris Pickle said:
I know FF is important in stills, but I'm still not convinced that it's important in video.
Click to expand...

yoda-closeup.jpg


"You will be.... You will be."
 
Tom, have you used the 7D for video? If so.. Can you tell us how it fares in the real world (and in talented hands)..

edit: sorry reading back i realised you weren't talking about the 7D.. But if you ever get to play with one, let us know!
 
Ace said:
Tom, have you used the 7D for video? If so.. Can you tell us how it fares in the real world (and in talented hands)..

edit: sorry reading back i realised you weren't talking about the 7D.. But if you ever get to play with one, let us know!
Click to expand...

I wish I was in the loop with the Canon people, but I'm not yet. Somehow Philip Bloom got one, so I've asked him to shoot some alias tests and zone plates if he gets a chance. I'm very curious to see what Graeme thinks of the zone plates.
 
Michael Hastings said:
Canon kept their video offerings consumerish in order to NOT jeopardize their broadcast lens business with the big guns in that industry - Panasonic and Sony.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. And the risk of making that leap was too big. Until Red broke the ice.


Tom said:
I don't think that lens thing fully explains Canon's actions.

The fact that Canon failed to realize there would be interest in a full-frame 35mm sensor that shoots 1080p in a compact body with L-series glass is all the evidence we need that their executives and decision makers were completely out to lunch. Apparently, from things I've read, Canon execs were "shocked" at the positive reaction to the 5D2. Really???? They could have invited a couple of members of this forum to lunch for an hour, and we could have told them that the market was literally drooling at the prospects of large-sensor digital cinema cameras with interchangeable lenses and good prices.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree here, Tom. I really doubt company like Canon failed to realize the potential interest and that the execs were shocked. Corporate b.s. is nothing new...especially with corporations that size.

To me it looks like the reason for not coming out with 35mm 24p sensor sooner was a combination of planned investments into new technology, based on market state, with the risk of endangering cooperation with broadcast lens clients - who have also entered "Cine" space. Not to mention that 2/3" sensor would be shooting itself in the foot.

Also, with "market state" - you have to take into consideration the state of computer technology with potential average Canon customer in mind - and the percentage of 1080p friendly computer systems today and 6-7 years ago...plus the state of internet.

I think Canons development and market approach was by choice, not oversight. They have pretty smart people over there... :-)
 
I can tell you the difference between Cinema cameras / lenses and the Canon 5DMKII or the 7D. Firstly the Canon 5DMKII did not fair that well against the Arri D21, Genesis, Sony F35 and certainly against Kodak & Fuji film stocks when the British Society of Cinematographers tested 18 different cameras (including Red One with version 18 software at the time) and showed these at the National Film Theatre in London, all of those cameras have smaller sensors. The Canon had terrible aliasing, noise in the shadow details and had a shimmering affected when you panned over strong vertical lines, I could go on but the fact is over 50 DOPs in atterndance that day were not impressed.
On a practical note the camera even fitted with film style accessories was not an assistants camera and never will be, where it has worked is shooting car interiors and mixing this with other HD footage but which ever way you look at it high end will not be using this camera on a regular basis and Canon never thought it would be at launch in Photokina they were pushing it as a wedding photographers camera.
One day some of you will understand its not simply about sensor size or how many pixels but equally its about colour space and about on-set functionality without compromises. As it stands now the industry is going backwards transfixed on pixel counts and lower prices if you dont believe this is damaging go on CML and see what professionals are saying about producers thinking if Red One is cheaper then the labour must be also and you know what they say about that "pay peanuts and you get monkeys" Im only glad in a few years I will be retiring the best days of this industry are gone to be filled with anoraks.
 
Nova, all of your points about the 5D2's flaws are valid, but they don't really have anything to do with the sensor size.

Julio, to answer your question, you could compare FF35 to S35 in the same way that you can compare 16mm to 35mm. Why do most DPs and directors prefer 35mm to 16mm? Because the image is simply better. More detail, less noise, more shallow DOF, etc. Some of the advantages defy definition. The larger sensor just simply "looks better."

I was flipping through channels the other day, when I landed on Turner Classics, which was showing "The King and I" from 1956. I had never seen it, and knew nothing about it, but within 2 seconds I knew it had been shot on a large format camera. My guess was 65mm. When I looked it up, sure enough, the film had been shot on "Cinema Scope 55mm." And keep in mind, TCM was showing the movie in SD.

I don't know how direct a correlation there is between DR and negative size, but to me, the DR seems to increase with larger formats. Certainly noise reduction is much better when you have a larger sensor with more resolution, because your image gets to benefit from massive downsampling.
 
Tom said:
Julio, to answer your question, you could compare FF35 to S35 in the same way that you can compare 16mm to 35mm. "
Click to expand...

Tom, I heartly disagree with you on this one. 16mm and 35mm are worlds apart. S35mm and FF35 are different for sure but never in such a distance than 16mm to 35mm.

There are valid advantages ob S35mm over FF35mm:

1. S35 is a good compromise between DOF, FOF lens speed, and lens size.

2. The bigger the sensor the bigger is the lens. A S35 zoom lens which magnifies more than factor 3 reaches easily the 5 kilo realm. A Cine-FF35 zoom will be even bigger.

3. The smaller S35 sensor allows faster lens designs delivering roughly the same DOF and equal FOV by needing less light.

Light sesitivity, however, will increase over time. The slower FF35 lenses will be compensated by more light sensitive sensors. But S35 will gain from this developement as well needing even less light.

I find that there is a upper limit in sensor size which clearly depends on the applciation the camera is used for. I find S16mm very suitable for docs and S35mm for the most of narrative work. FF35mm is in the moment mainly a stills format, very rarely used in the motion picture industry. If the formula the bigger the better would be valid in all regards there would be many more 65mm pictures around. The costs of stock were never a dealbraking factor in Hollywood.

Nevertheless I'm looking forward to FF35mm in the moving picture world. But I doubt that this will be a must for me, same with 4K as a delivery format.

Hans
 
Hans, you don't think cost, post pipeline, display options (lack of 70mm projectors?), size of camera, etc, are holding back larger format film cameras? Most of those factors do not apply to digital FF35mm cameras, especially now that 4K projectors are starting to catch on with major theater chains.

Ask any ASC guy if he would like to shoot a feature on 65mm film, and 99% of them will say, "Hell YES." In fact, their eyes light up when they even think about it. :smilewinkgrin:

As you say, certain projects will benefit from the smaller 35mm or S35mm format, and certainly the legacy of excellent S35 lenses will be in place for a long time, but for many other types of films, FF35 is going to be awesome. Right now anamorphic 35mm is similar in negative space and DOF issues to a larger formats like FF35. Somehow, the camera crew is able to deal with the DOF on anamorphics.

I think people are vastly underestimating the appeal of FF35.
 
Tom said:
I think people are vastly underestimating the appeal of FF35.
Click to expand...

Right now I'm with Hans personally.

If I was shooting a big epic with huge vistas I'd prefer the bigger format for those shots but when it comes to shooting people and things that movie I'm really liking s35 as just about right. In fact, I shot 3K for the first time last week and it worked out really well. It's a little deeper DOF at wide open and we were shooting a restaurant/bar commercial.

It's really pretty tough to focus now. If bigger sensors make that even tougher I don't think people will do it.

What I can see happening is format switching during production. You use the big sensor for the EPIC wides where wide angle and resolution are more important and focus is easy. Then you switch to S35 for typical moving movie shots. As far as resolution, I'm personally happy with RED right now.

I think the opportunities are in latitude, heat/power consumption, physical size, audio control, on board lut/profiling, remote camera control, more on camera programmable buttons - almost everything other than straight up resolution. I think that's how they beat Canon... 'cause all Canon has to do is fix skewing and their Codec and the FF Vista cam will exist for a fraction of what RED charges.
 
Look at it this way, though, Joel. If 4K, as many of us believe, is truly going to be the new "gold standard" for display (Cinemark and AMC are switching to 4K digital projectors already, for example), then to acquire that 4K image in pristine fashion, you will need a 6K Bayer camera. Maybe, possibly, you could get away with 5K, but only in perfect lighting. 6K is the minimum, IMO, for clean 4K, especially for low-light shots.

So... how do you get 6K resolution with low noise? A larger sensor. Right now, as far as I know, Epic X only shoots 5K. To me, as long as you are going to go for 4K, you might as well do it right. 5K is very borderline for pristine 4K. I shoot at 5.6K all the time on my Canon 5D2 for timelapse, and every bit of extra resolution (and having that big sensor) helps out when I do 4K renders for Getty or Artbeats. When you pixel-peep 4K footage, you will be wishing you used a big FF35 sensor with 6K, IMO.

In terms of focus pulling, don't be surprised if Red and other companies come up with some really slick focus-assist software. Hell, we could even see third-party "apps" for DSMC or other cams, that track individual faces, etc. Didn't Jarred already mention that Red is working on some ass-kicking focus-assist tools for DSMC?
 
Tom, you raise good points about absolute quality. It seems like a no brainer that 6K full frame would be better than 5K S35. But there are many other factors that contribute to the "quality" of a movie. Bigger and slower lenses, shorter recording times and slower post production due to higher data rates. These things can all bog down a production, keep you from getting that cool car interior shot, or break the momentum of your actors as you change flash cards again. I'm not saying that FF isn't the greatest thing out there, but it seems the jury is still out as to whether bigger is definitely "better".
 
Tom said:
I wish I was in the loop with the Canon people, but I'm not yet. Somehow Philip Bloom got one, so I've asked him to shoot some alias tests and zone plates if he gets a chance. I'm very curious to see what Graeme thinks of the zone plates.
Click to expand...

Lets hope for an improvement ... BUT from the few original sample currently on the web, it seems to suffer from the same problems (aliasing / moire) ... perhaps a tad less than the 5Dii.

Will be good once Scarlet arrives ... with hopefully great noise performance ;-)
 
David Nardini said:
Lets hope for an improvement ... BUT from the few original sample currently on the web, it seems to suffer from the same problems (aliasing / moire) ... perhaps a tad less than the 5Dii.

Will be good once Scarlet arrives ... with hopefully great noise performance ;-)
Click to expand...

David, can you direct us to any clips in particular where you noticed aliasing and artifacts?
 
I'll put in my two pixels worth here, I think FF (6K) and 645 (9K) cinema will gain popularity and much wider adoption as it becomes easier to shoot, post and project such material. however, until a comprehensive range of true FF coverage cinema glass, including lightweight and 10:1 or 12:1 T2.8 Zooms comes out for FF there will not be very wide adoption for mainstream cinema. Lenses are the DPs paintbrush and I personally do not want to be limited to optics designed solely for still photography. This is not to say that there aren't some great still lenses out there, just that the few I would consider for cinema use are not enough to justify the adoption of the format at this time. There will always be some trailblazers that will make do and still create stunning work. It may be a totally different world in 2-3 years though after a FF Epic a 5DIII and whatever Nikon's next 700 camera (rumored to have RAW video) is we may find Cooke, Zeiss and Angie putting out some impressive FF coverage glass and
the whole game will change.
 
Chris Pickle said:
A $2k camera did not fair well against a $200k camera... It's clearly a failure then.
Click to expand...

Right. There needs to be a little perspective in these comparisons.

Odds are I'll get a 7D as I need a nice SLR that takes Canon lenses. I actually prefer the smaller sensor because it matches RED pretty well. I can location scout with it and my lenses. Hell... at 24P I can shoot some moving shots on the location scout and really get a feel for how the shoot with RED might go.

I'm guessing I'll end up with both an EPIC and a 7D. One thing's for sure - if I get a 7D I'll get to the bottom of its' weaknesses and strengths vs. RED.

The Birger mount and wireless FF has already come in pretty handy for me and the 7D won't take that. I also know that the same second someone has $100K for a production is the same second they'll want at least a RED to shoot on.

But to think that all the low end guys aren't going to buy a 7D and figure out how to make it work for their music videos, low budget commercials and Oscar worthy shorts is whistling in the dark. We're talking $2k vs. $10K here.

For the $8K difference you can get a VF wireless FF, some lenses and a nice audio mic/mixer setup.

There'd have to be one helluvalotta aliasing and skewing to be worth $8k for most folks. High frame rates are probably close to value-less to many people. We've already seen a lot of HDV on TV and h.264 should be capable of better than that. You'd never edit in h.264 but right now no one with a MAC edits R3D directly - so that's a workflow wash in my mind.

There are a lot of guys out there happy with HVX200s - and those look like sh!t (to me). You shoot a minute on a RED and you'll want to burn your HVX. I'm pretty sure the 7D w/h.264 will put an HVX to shame for resolution, color and low light performance (not to mention DOF).

And who'd buy a lens adapter now? They are quirky animals.

and 6K or 4K viewing? Wait 5 years and have that discussion. Applying a little sharpening to RED 4K will get you nice 4K. Consumers aren't really buying BluRay DVDs yet. Only when their price approaches DVD pricing do they begin to sell. Consumers, even though they have HDTV's simply don't care. I don't blame 'em cause I think a lot of BluRays I've seen are oversharpened crap. Modern DVDs with current compression and an uprezzing DVD player look really good.

I dunno - I'm saying it's complicated and a lot of these discussions end up in "theoryland" as opposed to "realityland" where average folks actually open up their wallets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top