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

David, thanks for your comment! I'd agree that there is irony in some members of the industry relating to their perceptions of various camera systems. Indeed, there is a similar perception disconnect in photographers who, to me, appear to be even more fastidious about image quality and pixel peeping than the average cinematographer, but utterly forget such image quality criticism once the image starts moving.

Similarly, if we'd taken the same short-cuts that Canon have done to make their stills cameras do video, we'd have been (deservedly) roasted alive. :)

But I'd also remember that image quality criticism is a learned faculty, and it does need cultivating as appreciation of fine whisky needs cultivating. Ask your mum about the image artifacts in that over-compressed broadcast and you'll get a "what?" - but I remember the first VHS recording I ever made back in the early 80s and I remember thinking the image quality was perfect to the broadcast source. Oh how perceptions change as you learn to see through new eyes.

Graeme
 
Thanks Matthew - will do!

Graeme
 
Brandon Kraemer said:
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.
Click to expand...

In my personal opinion, the ONLY thing DSLR's have over HDV is shallow DOF. In all other regards, the current HDV cameras (including some consumer ones) are better for video work. No moiré, less jello - and HDV grades much, much better than .h264. I can push HDV pretty similarly to DVCPro HD, in the other hand, H.264 gets very blocky in gradients, very soon.

Based on quite a bit of post work with DVCProHD, HDV (and it's sibling XDCAM EX), and some DSLR too, i'd say that HDV is vastly underrated - the difference to P2 isn't that big - sure, the data rate is smaller, but in the other hand, the compression is more efficient. There's the same luma resolution, but less chroma resolution, as far as formats go.

Edit to add: Actually, if one shoots NTSC frame rates, DVCPro HD is just 1280x1080 for luma and 640x1080 for chroma... so it loses to HDV on the more important luma resolution. I shoot for PAL framerates so i forgot ;-)

But when it comes to cameras, a lot of P2 footage comes from the cheaper end of systems, HVX200 / HPX500 etc. Those have just 960x540 sensors, so the actual color information captured is very similar to what HDV format allows. In other words, if you save HVX200 footage in 4:2:0 HDV, and you don't lose any color or luma resolution, as HDV specs exceed the camera's output.

Funnily enough, it seems my consumer HDV camcorder, Canon HV20 produces sharper, cleaner images than HPX500 (from a bluescreen shoot a few years back):

HDV_DVCPro_test_cropped.jpg


This said, Red One kicks all the above to oblivion, with a huge marigin. There's no comparison really.
 
Last edited:
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...

Really? For serious? This isn't a troll? I'm looking at them now in my browser window sized to about 1200 wide, which is probably about how you're viewing them. The difference is night and day to me. Looking at the 7D alone, it doesn't look too bad, just a little video-y (kind of, fuzzy and over-sharpened at the same time, and an odd mix of weird yellows and purples in the sheen of the flag), until I look at the c-stand on the right and the shininess looks really gross, and then I notice the purple halo on the right edge of the c-stand, and, well, yuck. Then I flip over to the Red one, and the c-stand in particular looks a MILLION times better, but the whole scene looks like a real photograph, no weird colors where they shouldn't be, and true sharpness, not edges with added contrast.

That said, when I shrink them down to SD (720 wide), they look comparable, though the Red's superior dynamic range makes the c-stand still look a little nicer.

Of course, this is ignoring that the Red one is overly greenish-gray-brown and muddy, but we all know that's easily fixed in Color (the 7D, not so much).
 
joshua csehak said:
Really? For serious? This isn't a troll? I'm looking at them now in my browser window sized to about 1200 wide, which is probably about how you're viewing them. The difference is night and day to me. Looking at the 7D alone, it doesn't look too bad, just a little video-y (kind of, fuzzy and over-sharpened at the same time, and an odd mix of weird yellows and purples in the sheen of the flag), until I look at the c-stand on the right and the shininess looks really gross, and then I notice the purple halo on the right edge of the c-stand, and, well, yuck. Then I flip over to the Red one, and the c-stand in particular looks a MILLION times better, but the whole scene looks like a real photograph, no weird colors where they shouldn't be, and true sharpness, not edges with added contrast.

That said, when I shrink them down to SD (720 wide), they look comparable, though the Red's superior dynamic range makes the c-stand still look a little nicer.

Of course, this is ignoring that the Red one is overly greenish-gray-brown and muddy, but we all know that's easily fixed in Color (the 7D, not so much).
Click to expand...

The C-stand is really nice looking in the RED shot, agreed. I hadn't looked so closely at it before, but it is night and day.

On thing I notice on the smaller arm of the stand is the black line running down it on the RED has a significant amount of aliasing when viewed 1:1. The 7D is too soft there to compare it. Of course, bringing the image down and that goes away real fast :)
 
I've been doing alot of client based work with both my 7D and Red One. What amazes me is how some people don't perceive or want to perceive the glaring shortcomings of the 7D. As shown by the charts and even more so with live action, the 7D has a very "skinny" colorspace. That's the only way I can describe it. Fleshtones lack subtlety and dimension to my eyes. It's the breezy light of 2010. At 1800.00 it's an easy decision to purchase it. The day rates for a complete package with monitors, support and accessories with commercial clients approaches that of my RED. I'd never shoot a typical feature on it. Nor would I hand hold my RED out the side of a 20 story building (something I've done with my 7D). In short, different tools for different needs. When the hype dies down, the 7D will find it's rightful niche.
 
andrewhake said:
Not really sure why people compare these 2 cameras. No matter how you look at it. The 7D is a camera that is roughly 1/10th the cost of a Red One, it doesn't shoot as high-res or high quality video as a digital cinema camera. Although it is nice to see the actual visual difference I really don't find it that surprising.

The 7D and Red are both extremely impressive for very different reasons.
Click to expand...

I agree, what is the point of comparing a 7D to a RED, at least throw a 5D next to it, just a thought.
 
7d is a $1200 camera. Is the 7d image 15 times worse? I'm not sure.

I have 2 Megapixel Canon from 2001, should I upload some test images from that?
 
Shoot something with detail and pattern... come on. You guys know how to break something.

Jim
 
I think people should stop pixel peeping and focus on why clients are requesting shoots on the 5D/7D rather than RED. In the last week alone I've been asked to shoot two commercials on the Canons where before those jobs would have been RED or film. It cant simply be economics. What is scaring them off?
 
Liam Hall said:
I think people should stop pixel peeping and focus on why clients are requesting shoots on the 5D/7D rather than RED. In the last week alone I've been asked to shoot two commercials on the Canons where before those jobs would have been RED or film. It cant simply be economics. What is scaring them off?
Click to expand...

It's the 'in' thing these days... I guess moire/aliasing is the next effect people are after.......:closedeyes:

We're about to do a big project and the clients want 5D/7D as well... I wouldn't mind that much but would prefer to use something better to work with in post color-grading wise as well as overall quality... but nope, they wanna use em canons...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top