Canon 7D looks quite Nice

[Mick Jones]

Ok so to sum up this entire thread in a few sentences...

Is the main complaint of the 7D some aliasing and artifacting which can both be fixed in post?

Other than that when you look up "The most insane bang for the buck" there is just a picture of the 7D. Is this a true statement?

For $1700 that's hardly a complaint in my book.

Sounds about right. What are the "post fixes" for the aliasing? Someone mentioned one for artefacting a few posts ago.

 

[Daniel Browning]

Is the main complaint of the 7D some aliasing and artifacting which can both be fixed in post?

In the case of the 7D, there is absolutely no method to have it "fixed in post" (don't you love that phrase?).

You can't use a REDCINE-style digital anti-alias filter, because the luma is just as contaminated with aliasing as the chroma.

Even if you did have the full 14-bit raw file, and you used the very best anti-aliasing software in the world (Phase One Pro, IMHO), the results are still very poor.

The only option is to just throw out as much resolution as possible. Then you're only left with the aliasing at low spatial frequencies (which is a lot, but not as bad as if you use the "full" resolution.)

 

[Bryce O]

In the case of the 7D, there is absolutely no method to have it "fixed in post" (don't you love that phrase?).

What are you talking about? Have you ever used after effects before? And that's IF you run into aliasing. It doesn't appear on every shot. Aliasing never appears when shooting organic subjects. If you were shooting a deep focus documentary on a window blind manufacturer... that might present a problem.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Daniel is correct that the kinds of aliasing artifacts as seen in 7D and 5D2 can't be fixed in post. If they could, we'd not be bothered about them, other than for fix-it render time. You are correct though that if you keep everything out-of-focus, then you don't see any aliasing or cross-colour artifacts. Somewhat defeats the point though....

Graeme

 

[Daniel Browning]

And that's IF you run into aliasing. It doesn't appear on every shot.

There is no IF about it. It does appear on every shot that has any fine detail. I defy you to post a link to any original 5D2 MOV file that has both fine detail and is alias-free. It does not exist. I've seen thousands of 5D2 files (my own, my colleagues', and online), and not one has ever had fine detail without aliasing. Either it has no fine detail (due to motion blur, missed focus, diffraction, smooth subjects, etc.) or it has aliasing. Never the two shall part.

Aliasing never appears when shooting organic subjects.

Yes it does. I agree that organic subjects tend to have less objectionable aliasing artifacts, but to me they are still quite bothersome and unnatural. You, personally, may interpret the aliasing of organic subjects as a desirable "crunchy" look, but to others, it looks fake and artificial, like looking at nature through a screen door.

Take any sharp organic nature photo and compare two 10X downsamples: one with nearest neighbor, and the second with a good algorithm (sinc, lanczos, etc.).

If you were shooting a deep focus documentary on a window blind manufacturer... that might present a problem.

Eyes are one of the most important subjects. If any of your clips have someone with eyeglasses, then the aliasing is going to be very distracting unless you have the DOF thin enough that the eyes are in focus and the eyeglasses are not.

 

[Joel Kaye]

There is no IF about it. It does appear on every shot that has any fine detail.

http://vimeo.com/6496808

Look maybe you can find some stuff in that video you think is bad but I've shown it to about 10 people and so far zero of them have mentioned anything negative. (yeah I can freeze frame this or that and find a jaggy)

You may be uniquely tuned to see it and it drives you nuts. Fair enough. I just don't think you're going to find more the 2 in a 100 normal people that dog that above video as being worthless crap due to aliasing.

 

[David Rasberry]

http://vimeo.com/6496808

Look maybe you can find some stuff in that video you think is bad but I've shown it to about 10 people and so far zero of them have mentioned anything negative. (yeah I can freeze frame this or that and find a jaggy)

You may be uniquely tuned to see it and it drives you nuts. Fair enough. I just don't think you're going to find more the 2 in a 100 normal people that dog that above video as being worthless crap due to aliasing.

Some people are fine with SD video too. Its about at that level of resolution.

 

[Daniel Browning]

You may be uniquely tuned to see it and it drives you nuts. Fair enough. I just don't think you're going to find more the 2 in a 100 normal people that dog that above video as being worthless crap due to aliasing.

That's what I've been saying all along. 90% of normal people don't notice aliasing. In fact, they like it. To me it is highly unnatural and fake-looking, but to most people it is a desirable "sharp and crunchy".

Most people also like highly unnatural saturation: Neon green grass and ultra-vibrant reds. They think it is more desirable, but a small minority of shooters think it looks fake.

Most people like a very high contrast image: just 5 stops from highlights to blacks, so that it looks very punchy. The minority prefers a lower contrast (high dynamic range) look. The list goes on and on:

• Sharpening: most people prefer highly oversharpened images with ringing artifacts (this has even afflicted my stack of Blu-rays. ).
• Interlace twitter: most people don't notice interlace twitter, just as they don't notice aliasing.
• Color accuracy: Most people prefer Velvia, even though the color is highly inaccurate.
• Skew: Most people don't notice skew, even when it's really bad (e.g. D90).
• Breathing: as you rack focus, most people don't pay attention if a lens breathes badly.
• Chromatic aberration: most people aren't bothered by it.
• Out of focus: most people don't notice if nothing in the shot is in focus.
• Flare: veiling, misshapen, or otherwise, most people don't care.
• Noise: most people don't notice random noise or grain.

So as I've been saying all along: most people don't notice aliasing, and in fact they like it. But if you or your audience does not like aliasing, then that is one negative attribute about the 7D.

 

[Steven Caesare]

That's what I've been saying all along. 90% of normal people don't notice aliasing. In fact, they like it. To me it is highly unnatural and fake-looking, but to most people it is a desirable "sharp and crunchy".

Most people also like highly unnatural saturation: Neon green grass and ultra-vibrant reds. They think it is more desirable, but a small minority of shooters think it looks fake.

Most people like a very high contrast image: just 5 stops from highlights to blacks, so that it looks very punchy. The minority prefers a lower contrast (high dynamic range) look. The list goes on and on:

• Sharpening: most people prefer highly oversharpened images with ringing artifacts (this has even afflicted my stack of Blu-rays. ).
• Interlace twitter: most people don't notice interlace twitter, just as they don't notice aliasing.
• Color accuracy: Most people prefer Velvia, even though the color is highly inaccurate.
• Skew: Most people don't notice skew, even when it's really bad (e.g. D90).
• Breathing: as you rack focus, most people don't pay attention if a lens breathes badly.
• Chromatic aberration: most people aren't bothered by it.
• Out of focus: most people don't notice if nothing in the shot is in focus.
• Flare: veiling, misshapen, or otherwise, most people don't care.
• Noise: most people don't notice random noise or grain.

So as I've been saying all along: most people don't notice aliasing, and in fact they like it. But if you or your audience does not like aliasing, then that is one negative attribute about the 7D.

Indeed. Many people seem to have liked the "ultra-HD" look of DLP at 720p as well... the sharp edges seem to scream "high definition" to them. To me it said "false HF detail".

-sc

 

[Eric Ferguson]

I think you can talk yourself out of a job pretty quickly if you insist on playing the "most people don't notice...." game. Sure, most people don't "notice" a lot of the things that we spend days and weeks trying to perfect, but it doesn't mean that the sum of these things doesn't affect the project in ways that are more difficult to quantify.

Aliasing on the 7D is a significant strike against the camera, as far as I'm concerned. Thing is, the camera has already hit so many home runs that I'm willing to forgive it a strike or two.

 

[Daniel Browning]

Aliasing on the 7D is a significant strike against the camera, as far as I'm concerned. Thing is, the camera has already hit so many home runs that I'm willing to forgive it a strike or two.

That's a great way to put it.For some projects, the aliasing gets outweighed by the advantages of thin DOF, low light performance, specialty lenses, weight, and cost. (Particularly when I know my audience, such as wedding brides, wont even notice the artifacts.)

Hopefully it will only be a few years before $3,000 FF35 still cameras can get down to normal levels of aliasing.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

The funny thing is, is that aliasing only rears it's ugly head if things are in focus. And the big thing people like with the 5D2 and 7D is the shallow DOF where practically nothing is in focus, and even on the nice Canon lenses, fully open is a tad soft. In the end, when they see and like the image, what they're actually seeing is to a small extent a nice lens, and to a very large extent, shallow DOF.

But shallow DOF is a creative tool, and when used in overkill, just makes you rub your eyes and want to go to the optician to see if your eyes are not focussing right any more.

Two weeks back I saw District 9 at the local cinema. It was projected almost completely out of focus. Of all the people in the cinema, I was the one who complained. It was literally SD resolution what I watched, but only I complained.

Does that mean we should just shoot SD with a 35mm adapter and be done with it? Hell no!!

Art is not about going for the lowest common denominator. It's about bringing your vision to the screen to the greatest extent possible that it is.

You only ever get to do anything you do just once. Nothing is a repeat. Make the most of the experiences you have.

To me, "they'll never notice" is not an excuse to get away with "good enough", but a reason to educate the benefits of doing things right.

Graeme

 

[Juan Baranchuk]

What about good zooms for Canon 7D?

I have tested the Nikon 17-55mm 2,8 (DX) with a Nikon DSLR and I felt it was perfect for video use.

I would like a good zoom for my future Canon 7D, maybe with this adaptor http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/ should the Nikon work OK? (resolving the problem of the electronic iris of the Nikon)

What about a wide zoom 17-55 from canon with no breathing, and with hold focus through the zoom? Any experiences?

Waiting for Scarlet 2/3 impatiently!
Until then, I think I will use the 7D.

 

[Joel Kaye]

That's what I've been saying all along. 90% of normal people don't notice aliasing. In fact, they like it. To me it is highly unnatural and fake-looking,

OK, I get where you're coming from. Thanks.

I have to agree about "too sharp". To me a number of the BluRay's out there are just horribly oversharpened and I personally hate them. I also thought a lot of F900 looked horrible. Get the Dune for SciFi channel DVDs. Ok don't - just trust me. LOL!

But the 7D footage I'm seeing isn't anywhere near as crunchy as that stuff.

I do prefer REDs creaminess. That said - I'm $40k+ in. The 7D is $1700 plus a lens to get started. Where will Scarlet fall exactly? Unknown.

And I'll repeat. Outside of weddings and other no budget stuff I don't think people will really use the 7D in a big way. I think EPIC is where all the pro stuff will go. Just guessing of course.

 

[Eric Ferguson]

The 7D will the be the camera they strap to the front of speedboats with a samyang fisheye on the front. 60 frames per second on an S-35 sensor with specialty glass for under $2000

Who says cheap cameras don't have a place in big-budget productions

 

[Roberto B]

why the name?
this should be known as reduser's canon forum

 

[Pasha Hanover]

So I take it if Canon was to develop an add-on writer (which is the rumor) that wrote the files in RAW (not sRAW) than using a "finished product codec" then the aliasing and artifacting wouldn't be so much of a problem anymore?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

I severely doubt they can read out the full sensor of a 5D2 or 7D at 24fps, never mind higher. And how long would a CF card last? Seconds? And it doesn't have the write speed to keep up either...

Graeme

 

[Pasha Hanover]

I severely doubt they can read out the full sensor of a 5D2 or 7D at 24fps, never mind higher. And how long would a CF card last? Seconds? And it doesn't have the write speed to keep up either...

Graeme

Couldn't they write it to an external writer through the HDMI port?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Well, if the full sensor cannot be read out that fast, it doesn't matter what port you tie it to...

Graeme