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 vs. RED ONE - a real footage comparison

Sanjin, could you post a 4K jpg of the RED and a 1920X1080 jpg (with the smallest compression possible, of course) from the 5D from that last test? It's the only way to compare apples to apples.

I'm going to make some tests as well with both cameras. I don't really believe that the 5D performs that much better at low light.
 
Sorry that R1 part of the footage is a bit choppy with some stutter because it was shot @ 23.98 and later dropped at 25 FPS editing time line...

Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Sanjin, why didn't you put the camera on a tripod? It's boggling my mind.

You just threw a cine-puff for the camera and put it sitting in the middle of the street, that's weird man hahahaha, I'm laughing over here.
Click to expand...

At that time there were a lot of police cars and dogs because of the street demonstration at Schwartzenberg Platz around the corner

and it was not possible to shoot there for a certain reason.

Then CineSaddle was a perfect solution to carry the rig with one hand around to find another place to shoot the test.

Álex Montoya said:
Sanjin, could you post a 4K jpg of the RED and a 1920X1080 jpg (with the smallest compression possible, of course) from the 5D from that last test? It's the only way to compare apples to apples.

I'm going to make some tests as well with both cameras. I don't really believe that the 5D performs that much better at low light.
Click to expand...

Álex,

per your request

R1 4K high quality compressed jpeg>>>

7D 1080p high quality compressed jpeg>>>


The test like this can't please everybody as I knew it from the beginning.

But please don't "feel" offended just because it is nothing against 7D nor R1.

Also R1 is definitely better digital cinema cam than 7D even in a high ISO as it is not one of its best "features".

I always wanted to "treat" a footage from R1 as a "fake" of 35mm film and

sometimes R1 goes even beyond that "fake" and make its own very high value.

But that is about R1, the most popular digital cinema camera today and probably tomorrow with its M-X sensor upgrade.

About a footage from 7D and similar (high ISO) vDSLRs I always wanted to treat it as a "fake " of 16mm fast stock film footage.

Could be possible to get there too but you should be very careful during acquisition and

also later in post because of many artifacts that you can find there (H264 compression, aliasing, moire, etc,...).

One more thing:

Have a look at the new film and trailer from Paul Greengrass's Green Zone

with Matt Damon in a leading role that shot on 35mm and 16mm Arri film cameras.

Maybe it could be possible to do almost the same picture quality using R1 (M-X upgraded) and 7D/5D/1D MK4.

But we'll see that in the future...
 
Sorry but I'm with Ian again here. Sanjin's footage looks fishy to me.

We've seen the earlier footage at the power station and with the guy crying on the balcony. The Canon produced superb low light shots with no grain and the Red produced great video but very dark and under exposed because it couldn't handle the low light conditions of the sunset at that point. How then is it explained that in Sanjin's test, the Red exhibits better low light performance and the Canon exhibits massive noise and massive oversaturation?

Incidentally that level of noise from the Canon has has only been seen in independent professional Canon tests such as those on Dpreview at ISO 6,400 and 12,600 which if such a setting was needed to achieve the footage, would have left the Red completely in the dark as it can't achieve those sensitivities:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page15.asp

The shots seem to me as if the Red is at reasonable ISO, the Canon is set deliberately too high and then over processed with massive saturation adjustments to make it look worse. If that's not the case Sanjin, how are you results at odds with those of other professional photographers?

Your result not only belies the results we've seen from ireland footage but it also belies the other low light videos we've seen from Dan Chung such as the one in Hong Kong which exhibits no grain in extremely low light conditions or any colour problems. In fact the most striking thing about Dan's film is how clean and pure the colours are and on the grain point, Dan states the film was shot at ISO 1600 to 6400 yet remains ultra clean. Your results just don't fit.:

Dan Chung's Honk Kong Film here: http://vimeo.com/6759220

I don't mean to bash you Sanjin, but your results just don't stack up when compared back to back with other professionals tests.
 
Here's the direct comparison between the two:
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/9079/comparson.jpg

I'm surprised the Canon holds so much detail. I mean, sure, there's a resolution boost in the RED but the 7D holds up pretty well.

That's though the worst case scenario for the RED: low red light and I'm guessing the difference would be much obvious in sunlight, but it's interesting nontheless.
 
Alsone said:
Sorry but I'm with Ian again here. Sanjin's footage looks fishy to me.

We've seen the earlier footage at the power station and with the guy crying on the balcony. The Canon produced superb low light shots with no grain and the Red produced great video but very dark and under exposed because it couldn't handle the low light conditions of the sunset at that point. How then is it explained that in Sanjin's test, the Red exhibits better low light performance and the Canon exhibits massive noise and massive oversaturation?

Incidentally that level of noise from the Canon has has only been seen in independent professional Canon tests such as those on Dpreview at ISO 6,400 and 12,600 which if such a setting was needed to achieve the footage, would have left the Red completely in the dark as it can't achieve those sensitivities:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page15.asp

The shots seem to me as if the Red is at reasonable ISO, the Canon is set deliberately too high and then over processed with massive saturation adjustments to make it look worse. If that's not the case Sanjin, how are you results at odds with those of other professional photographers?

Your result not only belies the results we've seen from ireland footage but it also belies the other low light videos we've seen from Dan Chung such as the one in Hong Kong which exhibits no grain in extremely low light conditions or any colour problems. In fact the most striking thing about Dan's film is how clean and pure the colours are and on the grain point, Dan states the film was shot at ISO 1600 to 6400 yet remains ultra clean. Your results just don't fit.:

Dan Chung's Honk Kong Film here: http://vimeo.com/6759220

I don't mean to bash you Sanjin, but your results just don't stack up when compared back to back with other professionals tests.
Click to expand...

Alsone,

think whatever you want but would be the best do it yourself the similar test side by side with R1 & 7D.

Also it is not so simple and easy to operate with two cameras simultaneously and always with the same successful result for both.

Btw, I'll get Zacuto's ZFinder sometimes in December because they are on a backorder now.

Must count that Dan Chung's Honk Kong Film is in a web (vimeo) container at a smaller size and QT original is still @ 720p.

Also my test could be that was shot even at a lower light conditions...

My offer was @ full HD 1080p...

Last, I do have samples shot at even higher ISO starting from 3200...6400 till 12800 with 7D at the same position

but that are not so useful footage samples at all.
 
Two things that makes Red better whatever you do is debayering. The 7D and 5D makes a realtime debayer down to 1080p while in Red you do it as a render from RAW files. So comparing sharpness (not to mention that the lens has to be the same on Red and 7D to compare them for real) it's impossible to get any camera who do "on the fly" debayer to match up with a camera that does it in post.

Also, you are comparing 5D and 7D footage filmed onto a CF-card. Those files are too compressed. Get RAW data out of the HDMI and transfer it. Then you have 4:2:2 footage to play with. At this moment it's not fully 1080p, but it still hasn't got the same compression and degration of image quality as the in-camera H.264 compression has.

You need to push the 7D to perform as close to Red one as it can before comparing them, and also use the same lens on both (same brand and focal range). And not to mention exposing them equal.

Here's a 7D as it should be before comparing.
http://www.syndicate.se/Default.aspx?Id=294

Here's sme footage from the 7D RAW:
http://www.syndicate.se/Files/Misc/VV_nya_hastigheter_30s_HIGH.mov
http://www.syndicate.se/Default.aspx?Id=297
 
As much as I always like the attitude that tests should minimize as many variables as possible so that the test actually tests what is being set out to test....

The RED was presumably shot onto CF card also, compressed. You may be able to record the HDMI on the Canon, but RAW it is not.

Yes you can do a very good demosaic in hardware, in camera, but it's expensive to do it properly. It's not that it can't be done.

The measured resolution of the 7D is so far below the limits of any decent lens, I hardly see that as a factor in the detail we see in shots. Yes, indeed, it would be nice if the very same lens could be used, but I don't see the lack of the same lens invalidating this particular test.

Graeme
 
Didn't mean RAW as in changing the stuff you do when shooting Red RAW or taking photos in RAW. Meant RAW as in RAW data out, that isn't put into a viewable format until you decode it with a RAW decoder and create a format for it. Rather better term; Uncompressed HDMI output.

Yes both record to CF-cards but the 7D compress the footage too much compared to Red One. I'd rather see a firmware update with a compression that is less destructive. I believe it's possible to do that without hardware upgrade. The 7D already push out around 43,3 mbit/s and I think that with a better compression it will be a killer. I'd rather have less time per card and bigger files that are 4:2:2 then as it is now. If the uncompressed HDMI is able to pull of that, then you might speculate if the onboard compression can do the same if tweaked.
If only canon could release something like that it would be great, but I do not think they will.
 
Well...as far as the numbers and specs are concerned I will not dispute anything anyone has to say. On paper the 7D is questionable and so are the GH-1. 5Dll etc. vs a cam like the Red. But from a non- technical POV I'm more interested in "real world" situations. That's what the Rodney Charter's test provided for me and I thought maybe some folks here should take that into account. I don't believe a cam like the HVX resolves much better than any of these DSLRs but just look at all the amazing things it has been used for, inter-cutted with and displayed on over the years. They all have some form of weakness...and yes....even the Red One. But these cams are all on such different levels that I'm still asking the question.... "why go there!!!??"
 
You need to push the 7D to perform as close to Red one as it can before comparing them, and also use the same lens on both (same brand and focal range). And not to mention exposing them equal.
Click to expand...
This is a very true statement
 
I'd like you to shoot a similar test using the same lens on both cameras, but rather than pointing the cameras at some faceless suburban street I'd like you to focus them on Megan Fox in a micro bikini or at the very least a Megan Fox look-a-like in a cocktail dress. Then, if I still care about the aliasing, low resolution and horrific codec I'll understand the value of this thread.
 
Liam Hall said:
I'd like you to shoot a similar test using the same lens on both cameras, but rather than pointing the cameras at some faceless suburban street I'd like you to focus them on Megan Fox in a micro bikini or at the very least a Megan Fox look-a-like in a cocktail dress. Then, if I still care about the aliasing, low resolution and horrific codec I'll understand the value of this thread.
Click to expand...
Ha ha....funny post. Here's something close to what you asked for....but more like a Megan Fox look alike with a little bit of extra weight.

http://vimeo.com/7575718
 
Liam Hall said:
I'd like you to shoot a similar test using the same lens on both cameras, but rather than pointing the cameras at some faceless suburban street I'd like you to focus them on Megan Fox in a micro bikini or at the very least a Megan Fox look-a-like in a cocktail dress. Then, if I still care about the aliasing, low resolution and horrific codec I'll understand the value of this thread.
Click to expand...

Um.... I don't get your point. Surely this is a situation where you want maximum detail. Surely you'd want to take a still image into photoshop, and pour over every nuanced detail of the curves and how the bikini fabric is tight across the nipples? Now, you tell me if you want to do that from a h264 compressed low resolution image, or a very high resolution image from the RED? Sure as I'm male and breathing, I'll take the RED image any time :-)

Graeme
 
Zone plates are wonderful diagnostics so that we can truly see what's going on. That's why I used them, not least to debug and diagnose our cameras performance. I was once told by a very respected TV engineer that any camera company that doesn't use zone plates to test their own cameras is, how shall I put this - stupid. I took his friendly advice seriously.

As for pointing cameras at beautiful women - that is something I really think is a good idea. But in that case I don't want to be looking for artifacts. I want to know that the artifacts are not there, so I can concentrate on, shall I say, other factors.

But then, I love detail in images. I don't want images to be soft, with ill-defined edges, or stair-steps when the edge finally does come into focus.

Graeme
 
What are we discussing here in this tread?

A content?

No.

A form?

No.

A tool?

Yes, we are discussing the two of them: R1 and 7D.

Right.

-------------------

All those Vimeo container web 7D movies are with much better lighting than my test sample that could described as a bit extreme low and available light situation at outdoor.

Also Vimeo original QTs are all @ 720p and don't fit and compare with my 1080p samples.

Just blow up Vimeo 720p QTs to 1080p and then you can see some more artifacts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top