Canon 7D looks quite Nice

[Daniel Browning]

Ok... Don't use a 7D. Go shoot a feature, assuming it's a cinematic style, on a DVX, HVX, XH-A1. It will look like s**t.

There are many times when I reach for my 5D2 instead of my XH-A1 because I want thin DOF and I anticipate that my audience will prefer thin DOF with artifacts over deep DOF with no artifacts.

But when there is deep DOF, the XH-A1 provides a far more cinematic style because it does not have as many aliasing artifacts, and offers far higher alias-free resolution.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

Go shoot a feature, assuming it's a cinematic style, on a DVX, HVX, XH-A1. It will look like s**t.

There are about a million examples that makes this statement absurd... exaggerate much?

 

[Bill Anderson]

These are just more "IF's" M PAUL. And they are not a decent place
to start if you wish to have decent quality. No one is saying
that you must have the best- what I'm saying is that you must have
the best for a given expectation and not to expect to get away with
using inferior gear to fulfill grand expectations. As in "the 7d is good
enough when compared to a full frame, RAW file, Scarlet".
I think we're often talking at cross purpose here. "GOOD ENOUGH",
in my book, means consciously opting for compromise when
compromise is unnecessary.
David Lynch and Lars Von Trier used cameras like the
PD 150 to make pretty decent movies, but don't kid yourself if
"degraded" imagery isn't to be part of your aesthetic.
And degraded imagery needs something close to genius if
it is to be considered an aesthetic, and not just inferior.
If you wish to make Andreas Gursky-like murals,
then do not use a plastic camera. Consider what exactly
you wish to say and how you wish to say it, every time,
every project. Good enough is a poor place to take refuge.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Ok... Don't use a 7D. Go shoot a feature, assuming it's a cinematic style, on a DVX, HVX, XH-A1. It will look like s**t.

Yes, way off base. Add an adapter and you are on absurdity territory. What about lighting, composition, camera movement, and, pacing, score, there is more, acting, the script.

An HVX with an SGpro will be FAR more than needed to satisfy an audience. But it is way more about the other factors than the camera, even DoF if you didn't have an adapter.

 

[David Rasberry]

If one is shooting for the Web, these VDSLR's are good enough for many purposes. The Web is not very demanding of image quality at this point in time.
If one is shooting to archive a library of work that might be used in many different formats and venues, then image quality is more important.
We must also address issues of "good enough" in terms of practical ergonomics for different shooting styles, suitability for many types of field production, robust and reliable construction, reasonable and flexible work flows.
Face it, most of us live with budgets that limit our equipment purchases. One makes the best compromise one can for intended use and creative desires.

 

[Mick Jones]

Can I throw up a "good enough" type of scenario where a 5D/7D might be considered instead of RED.

Mind you 80% of the music videos that I work on are RED productions, even in this budget range... but...

I recently had to pitch on a music video. Budget 15K. Standard Def TV finish. I own some Zeiss ZF's that give a good result on the 5D as well as matte box rails follow focus etc. It's fair to say that I could have the camera kit ready to shoot on a 5D for zero dollars out of the budget. The money saved on cam rental can be pumped into design, a decent grip or whatever to up the production values - or heaven forbid - actually make some profit from a record company music video ;-)

The 15-20K clip is a common price range from the record labels now for their emerging artists. Have worked on many of them for Sony, Universal and EMI. Some quite attractive "pro's" for shooting on this 5D rig are fast and easy to set up, light weight and can get it moving around a location with relative ease. All things to consider for the music video jobs. And of course the image out of it looks "cinematic" or movie like.

I personally think that for these low/mid level music videos not only is it "good enough", but in some cases... quite logical as a first choice set up.

 

[J Davis]

Can I throw up a "good enough" type of scenario where a 5D/7D might be considered instead of RED...

Any situation where a low profile is needed, whether you don't want ppl to think you are filming, or you don't want to be robbed, or you want ppl to assume it is stills
warzones, riots, carnival, illegal parties, drug trade documentaries ...

Now you could argue that scarlet 2/3 will change all that but I'll bet canon, pana or nikon video DSLR will still be less obvious.
Red's designs look powerful, look expensive and attract attention.

Don't get me wrong, I love their cam's but in this scenario the cam's fame works against it.

 

[Colin Sheldon]

To shoot with even an HVX in Morocco requires a permit... I walked across the border with a 5DM2 and shot to my hearts content.

We have a Red One, HVX and 5DM2. I say pick the tool that matches the job.

 

[Joel Kaye]

A lot of people in search of resolution and color depth nirvana, seems to miss that point.

Exactly.

Good enough is a poor place to take refuge.

Bill, there's this really cool quote feature on the board here. I have no idea who or what you're talking about half the time. If you include the quote you're referring to it'll help.

As to "Good enough is a poor place to take refuge" - well, a lot of people think shooting with RED is a poor choice for shooting a movie these days for a variety reasons. Others of us take refuge there.

Who's Right? Everyone.

And the guy that chooses to shoot a movie on a 7D will be right too as some others here point out. I have to agree that hiding a movie camera in an SLR format is awesome for Guerrilla shooting.

 

[Mick Jones]

To shoot with even an HVX in Morocco requires a permit... I walked across the border with a 5DM2 and shot to my hearts content.

We have a Red One, HVX and 5DM2. I say pick the tool that matches the job.

So true. I love the fact that you can shoot quality video quite unobtrusively with a stills cam.

 

[Bryce O]

Yes, way off base. Add an adapter and you are on absurdity territory. What about lighting, composition, camera movement, and, pacing, score, there is more, acting, the script.

An HVX with an SGpro will be FAR more than needed to satisfy an audience. But it is way more about the other factors than the camera, even DoF if you didn't have an adapter.

Using adapters is absurd. Low-Light performance is horrible and they're too problematic. You would have to be insane spend $1900 (or even $4500) to shoot 1080i on HDV just to avoid some mundane aliasing issues.

But when there is deep DOF, the XH-A1 provides a far more cinematic style because it does not have as many aliasing artifacts, and offers far higher alias-free resolution.

Xh-a1 resolution is significantly lower than the 5d. Actual measured res of the 5D is around 1440. Xh-a1 is closer to 720p than 1080 because it shoots interlaced. 1080i is not 1080p. And the 5D shoots square pixels where the A1 has anamorphic... resulting in much lower actual resolution. I've been shooting both cameras the last few months, 5D destroys it in every way, except for aliasing, which take 5 mins of my time to fix in after effects. And that's if it's a problem. Usually I don't run into it. If you insist the A1 is still superior, please buy it. It'll be on ebay tomorrow.

Seriously though. I am selling it. Need money for the 7D. :001_smile:

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Using adapters is absurd. Low-Light performance is horrible and they're too problematic. You would have to be insane spend $1900 (or even $4500) to shoot 1080i on HDV just to avoid some mundane aliasing issues.

Not if you have a good rail system, and when the option was to shoot with a 2/3" $40,000 camera. Also, DVCpro HD 4:2:2, not HVD. With the new ground glasses you lose about one stop, and the cameras are rated at about ISO500. It was very workable, and some times the only way to get a project to happen. And it could look fantastic. If it looked like shit it was the filmmaker's fault.

Now however, I just sold my HVX-200 and plan to buy a 7D. Still, all of this is for zero budget stuff. Basic Red One rentals are not that much. The 7Dwill allow me to shoot as much as I feel like, to get used to the "S35 world" with even better sensitivity than ISO500. However, a little jello, not that much color correcting, but the DLSR form factor, and other positives...

 

[Jason Ramsey]

back in the days before affordable 35mm systems, adapters were the affordable option... People used what they had available... and some to great success.

How much things have changed in such a short period of time.

 

[Michael Hastings]

The 7Dwill allow me to shoot as much as I feel like, to get used to the "S35 world" with even better sensitivity than ISO500. However, a little jello, not that much color correcting, but the DLSR form factor, and other positives...

Roberto: you are right on. This is the whole point of owning a good camera that has little financial downside. When you are ready to buy or rent a better camera for your projects I highly doubt you will be very upset also owning a 7D - if only to use it for production stills and behind the scenes shots.

7D is a highend stills camera (top ten?) that would sell tens of thousands if it (and its nearest competition) didn't have video at all. Not to mention that you probably won't lose more than $500 even if you choose to sell it a year from now. Yet during that time you will be able to use it for previsualizing; lighting, lens, and camera test shooting; auditions; and even "real" shooting in many situations that don't challenge its artifact producing limitations.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Yet during that time you will be able to use it for previsualizing; lighting, lens, and camera test shooting; auditions; and even "real" shooting in many situations that don't challenge its artifact producing limitations.

The real question becomes do you own an EPIC too? Or do you just rent the EPIC? Or Scarlet. I'm not sure. I do know owning a RED gets me into a lot of conversations I wouldn't otherwise. I assume EPIC will be the same or even moreso. That's probably worth it right there to me.

And I don't care how cool the 7D is you're not walking onto most pro sets with it. That'll be at least RED these days. I'm totally unclear about Scarlet right now.

For underwater though - hah! that's easy - 7D! Great in low light, tiny form factor. That's gotta be a product you'd think about making, right?

 

[Bryce O]

Not if you have a good rail system, and when the option was to shoot with a 2/3" $40,000 camera. Also, DVCpro HD 4:2:2, not HVD. With the new ground glasses you lose about one stop, and the cameras are rated at about ISO500. It was very workable, and some times the only way to get a project to happen. And it could look fantastic. If it looked like shit it was the filmmaker's fault.

Sorry, I meant compared to shooting on a 7D. Buying a mid level $1900 dollar adapter is insane when you could have a solid-state 35mm camera for $1700, even if you have to settle for some post work to fix artifacts sometimes. Honestly, I had just as many problems with HDV as with H.264. If it's not RAW, it won't be perfect either way.

BTW, Neat video does a great job of cleaning high iso noise and artifacts. You lose some detail, but it's negligible.

Not to mention that you probably won't lose more than $500 even if you choose to sell it a year from now.

Exactly, that's my plan. Or in 5-7 years when scarlet is available. :wink5:

 

[Peter Moretti]

Thanks for asking Michael!

... So there's a trend to use a less powerful OLPF than you'd otherwise use, but in reality, this doesn't cause too many problems....

...Until vDSLRs came along... As you know, downsampling is a sampling process, which means it needs a low pass filter before decimation. These vDSLRs appear to lack either adequate or any downsampling filter at all, leading to visible aliasing artifacts even on real-world material. It's doubly obvious on motion footage because aliases travel in the opposite direction to the motion of the object that is aliasing.

So yes, Canons have adequate optical filtering built in, but it's only adequate for stills mode. For video mode, the filtering is utterly inadequate due to the lack of proper downsampling filters in the electronics.

Graeme

Graeme, FWIU, the Canons do not output the entire sensor when in video mode; they essentially skip lines. This is done to allow for a faster sensor read which lessens the rolling shutter affect.

So perhaps their OLPF's are good enough for a full sensor read but not for a less than full read.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Peter, it certainly looks like they line skip from the analysis I've done, but Canon themselves deny that they do that. Either way, it's irrelevant to me what causes the nasty aliasing artifacts and cross-colors, but it's very important to every user of the camera that they know that such artifacts can and will occur, and how to avoid them.

Looking at my other posts where I put up 1:1 crops of zone plates from the 1D MK III, there's significant aliasing going on in stills mode, which might be acceptable for stills use, may cause issues for video use where aliasing is generally more obvious (because of camera movement) and harder to deal with because it's not like you can just go into photoshop and start painting them out on every single frame.

Graeme

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

I read from someone that they don't skip lines, but bin every 6 pixel group.

 

[Pasha Hanover]

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.