Temporary Scarlet replacement

[Alexander Ibrahim]

The BIGGEST problem with ANY Canon is the rainbow moire. EVERY project I have been on we have dealt with it. At least with the GH1 you'd not have to worry about that. It's absolutely horrible, and that, along with the aliasing, is a nightmare. ALMOST every bit of footage I shoot will not work at 1080p, it is that evident.

Something is funny here. I agree that the moire is a huge issue.

That said, I have a lot of 1080p footage that doesn't display moire. I've shot a feature length project with this camera and its not something that is always there killing you.

I have to disagree with Mr. Burnett in regards to the severity of the issue.

I do think the 7D is a bit soft at 1080p... I think all the current DSLR's are. I also see that it resolves better than 720p.

 

[srinik]

Well, it wouldn't be my first choice, but yes you can make a feature with an EX3 or an EX1.

Mostly this is because I find the EX1 and EX3 don't allow me to get the DoF as shallow as I may want.

You can try and work around this with a DoF adapter... but that is not my first choice, as it drops your effective ISO to 200 or 250 depending on the camera settings. (Typically a 2/3 stop loss in my experience.)

The other shortcoming is that the codec is 8 bit 4:2:0. I feel you can't push that codec around enough in post if needed. You can work around that with an outboard recorder, like the KiPro or NanoFlash.

You could try a 2/3" camera. That's close to 16mm sensor size, and you can use lots of B4 cine glass and converted S16 glass. You can control DoF better on 2/3" video cameras.

Right now I recommend a Sony F350. That camera is essentially a Sony EX3 but with 2/3" chips. I'd still recommend an outboard recorder though.

Thanks Alexander, what about the Sony 350K or 350L. Looks like Sony F350 cost over 25K.
Also can you rate the cameras in regards to their overall efficiency, I know Red1 sits pretty on top of the heap with T2i probably at the bottom.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Thanks Alexander, what about the Sony 350K or 350L. Looks like Sony F350 cost over 25K.

Oh... sorry.

I am talking about the Sony XDCAM EX PMW-350. That's an EX camera that uses SxS cards. When it was announced Sony called it the PMW-F350

You looked up the Sony XDCAM PDW-F350. That's an XDCAM that uses Sony's "Optical Disc". I really don't like that camera. It has 1/2" sensors and records an HDV like image, just with way better lens options.

The PMW-F350 comes in two varieties, F350K with an autofocus Fujinon 16x lens, and F350L without a lens.

I recommend the PMW-F350K, because the lens is only $1400 or so in that kit... and you won't get anywhere near as nice a lens for anything close to that price.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Hmmmm.... I have tried the 7D as well and the leaves and other small detail just don't resolve as well as I'd expect, and by expectations come from shooting on the HV20. As I mentioned earlier to me it looks like the Canon Hv20 (HDV consumer camcorder) has better results than the t2i/7D when it comes to detail in landscapes ( I say this without fully testing each side by side, so it's just a first impressions test).

I may wait until July and see what Canon has. Otherwise yes I may rent an ex3 to see how it looks and decide from there. In terms of price however and I am new to the whole DSLR video thing it seems like it is a few ($2-3k and up depending on the brand) to get your 7d or 5d to handle like an ex-3 (Shoulder mount, eyepiece, follow focus etc.)

I'd definitely be interested in in doing a comparison with the 7d and ex 3.

Thank you for the information.

7D vs EX3 is a no-contest in every respect, save for dynamic range, depth of field and low-light.

They are about par on dynamic range, 7D of course offers a far shallower depth of field, and is slightly superior in low-light. In terms of resolution, detail, manual controls, audio, skew, aliasing, etc. etc. etc. it is a landslide. It is just a so much more pleasing camera to use. To me, personally, I aim for deep depths of field in most cases, so it's a no-brainer.

I also have to say that a $1000 consumer camcorder from 3 years ago, HV20, produces sharper results than a 7D on wide, detailed shots. Of course, it loses out by quite a bit on dynamic range, low light, depth of field, etc.

Today's $1k camcorder, Panasonic TM700, however, beats out the 7D in virtually every respect, other than using interchangeable lenses, shallow depth of field and low light. If these things matter to you, get a 7D. If you value resolution, detail, texture, clean non-aliased images, colour accuracy, then get a camcorder, they do MUCH better.

Of course, it seems like shallow dof is the tipping factor for many.

 

[Liam Hall]

I'd definitely be interested in in doing a comparison with the 7d and ex 3.

I've done that.

For a standard interview with shallow dof the 7D wins by a distance.

For a standard wide with deep dof - the EX3 wins by a distance.

For a super wide the 7D wins by country mile as I don't have a lens for EX3 that is super wide

In short, the EX cameras are excellent, low cost work horses for corporate or run and gun type of work. The DSLRs are difficult to work with, but can produce really cool shots, particularly if you have access to top of the line lenses.

 

[Alden Anderson]

Oh okay. I have the T2i which I was planning on using for the shallow dof shots and then I guess the Ex3 or ex1r for landscapes where I want the extremely deep dof would be better suited.

Suhadip. I too want to shoot a lot of deep depth of field shots and the canon just doesnt cut it for these.

While shallow dof is beautiful it has its place as does deep dof so I'm going for that balance.

Looks like I will need to buy another camera. Anybody got an ex1r "lying around"

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I've done that.

For a standard interview with shallow dof the 7D wins by a distance.

For a standard wide with deep dof - the EX3 wins by a distance.

For a super wide the 7D wins by country mile as I don't have a lens for EX3 that is super wide

In short, the EX cameras are excellent, low cost work horses for corporate or run and gun type of work. The DSLRs are difficult to work with, but can produce really cool shots, particularly if you have access to top of the line lenses.

My experience jives with Liam's.

I'll add that for standard wide with moderate DoF the 7D and EX cameras are roughly tied.

Top of the line lenses? On the 7D I shoot video typically with Zeiss primes and Canon L series zooms. I'm dying to try Zeiss's LWZ.2 and Angeniuex's Optimo lenses on the 7D.

The glass makes a HUGE difference.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Oh okay. I have the T2i which I was planning on using for the shallow dof shots and then I guess the Ex3 or ex1r for landscapes where I want the extremely deep dof would be better suited.

Suhadip. I too want to shoot a lot of deep depth of field shots and the canon just doesnt cut it for these.

While shallow dof is beautiful it has its place as does deep dof so I'm going for that balance.

Looks like I will need to buy another camera. Anybody got an ex1r "lying around"

You could go for the older EX1 and not the "R" version. The improvements are nice but pretty minor for the most part. The most important is the better IR filtration, but you could get an IR blocking filter if you are in a situation where you think you'd need, e.g. lots of ND and synthetic black fabrics.

 

[Jim Retar]

I would go with a GH1 plus hack.... it deals with landscapes and deep focus better than the other DSLRs... but still has a nice shallow DOF if needed. Moire and compression are much better, aliasing is still a problem though.

 

[David Rasberry]

I would personally take the EX series for general motion work over any DSLR. The new XD cam PMW 350 is still a near $20k camera unfortunately.
Of course when I estimated the cost of a Scarlet Cinema package decked out with all the modules to match most of the feature set of the PMW350, including the lens, it was about the same price. Yikes!

 

[Jim Retar]

well yea, it really depends on your financial/work situation.

An EX or similar is likely to lose a hell of alot of value when the Scarlet arrives.... if you can cover that cost with work over the next 6-12 months... then get some pro kit.

If you need to save as much of your Scarlet budget as possible, then a GH1 is currently the best bet, in my eyes. It will have some resale value (post Scarlet) or could also make a nice B cam.

 

[Rick Burnett]

We must shoot different things, cause I can tell you moire and aliasing on the 7D comes up ALL the time. Shooting every weekend for the past two months has resulted in Moire shots in EVERY set of shots. Mind you, it's not on all shots, but enough that some really good shots were unusable. Example scenes:

1) Guy was laying on a couch talking. Rainbow moire pattern on the couch that is absolutely the worst I have ever seen.

2) Guy wearing a tactical vest. The straps holding together the vest rainbow moire all over the place.

3) Back of a large wooden shelf system in a basement. Moire patterns in the wood pattern.

4) Blinds in a window, moire between them in deep focus.

5) Ceiling tiles, moire in the pattern pressed into the tile.

6) industrial carpet. Shots from above sometimes depending on focal length exhibit lots of moire.

And these are just a few examples off the top of my head. The biggest problem is that when you are recording, you cannot see this in the display on the back of the the 7D. I had to use an external monitor to detect, and even then, since I am using a 720p external display (smallHD) I didn't catch all of them.

I am also not including the huge aliasing problem that all the DSLRs have. Any straight sharp lines stair-step like crazy.

I love my 7D, but these issues can really be disastrous especially in situations where you cannot recreate the scene easily. I recommend to people that they NEED to check the footage before wrapping up a scene if they cannot afford to reshoot it because you NEVER know what's going to affect the image horribly. This is NOT a good A camera especially if you need deep focus.

And 720p mode on the Canons is a JOKE. The moire and aliasing are SO bad we just avoid that mode altogether now. It's not worth trying to pull a slow-mo shot most of the time because things we would have NEVER though would be a problem are a HUGE problem.

But, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. I've attached a 1:1 crop of one of our images. Two things you will notice if you look at this image. First, there was no other colors in the couch yet you can see the lovely oil sheen like rainbow all over the blue area. With the actor moving slightly, this rainbow dances around horribly. We didn't see any of this in the display.

The second thing to notice is the compression breaking down in the couch area. It really did a bad job in my opinion, probably due to all the moire.

Pertaining to deep focus as well, have a look at post #208

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=214127&page=21

Camera A is the 7D, Camera B is the GH13 (hacked GH1) and camera C is an HMC150 I believe.

Compare picture A and with picture B and picture C. You can clearly see that the 7D is not resolving a lot of detail in the distant trees. The GH13 does better, but both fail compared to the HMC150.

(Don't compare sharpness or color as these were not the tests being performed, just detail resolution)

I think the biggest problem with the 7D other than the color moire and aliasing is the compression algorithm. The loss of detail in the trees when I zoomed in definitely looks like a macro blocking problem.

Everyone's experience is different, but I have tons of proof to show that with the 7D you do have to put a lot of thought into not just the artistic aspect of your shot, but the technical limitations of the camera as well. For this reason, when we shoot concerts or live events, we use our HVX200 as at least we can trust the image in a situation where we cannot reshoot.

With the GH13, there are other problems, and as I said, I've seen a variety of issues pertaining to to the hack nature of the process. I have no experience so I cannot say how much of a hinderance it is using the hacks, or, where the data rates get too high that you can loose footage. It still does make a pretty picture.

I'm waiting on a Scarlet as well. I have searched for something to hold me over, but really, nothing I have seen in the under $6k has impressed me AT ALL. The low light sensitivity of the 7D stole my heart

 

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

Yes, because on this forum we know that no one, anywhere, has managed to record 4K to CF cards.

That's clearly impossible, and absolutely why Canon couldn't possibly manage this.

I am going to guess that you've never heard of RED or a camera called the RED One?

I'll take that a step further and guess that you have never heard of compression.

Canon could easily accomplish the specs in that list. I don't think they will do it, but for their own internal politics and "strategy."

it seems that you didn't read my second post.. well, I never heard that canon ever made any kind of compression except for their RAW files and this a simple strate data compression.. zip like..
I've never seen any RAW motion compression codec except two: one is redcode.. two is cineform raw.. I you don't wanna know how much such a compression technology adds to the cost of the camera and simply they don't have this kind of history.. if they did it.. then hello Canon.. but, this is not really their style..

 

[Aaron Newsome]

Add to Cineform RAW, also HDCAM-SR. HDCAM-SR is generally regarded as very good compression, and that particular compression method can reduce your bandwidth requirements to at least half. There are a number of codecs, visually lossless, that have at least 2:1 compression so I think this is doable to CF cards or SSD.

 

[Graham Foulkes]

wonder what the canon xf300 is like?

 

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

Add to Cineform RAW, also HDCAM-SR. HDCAM-SR is generally regarded as very good compression, and that particular compression method can reduce your bandwidth requirements to at least half. There are a number of codecs, visually lossless, that have at least 2:1 compression so I think this is doable to CF cards or SSD.

yes, I forgot that one.. yes, it records log data to tape.. maybe that's why I forgot about it.. I think nowadays tape development has almost stopped..
I also doubt that you can call this data RAW bayer sensor data.. as it records from three sensors..

 

[Peter Moretti]

wonder what the canon xf300 is like?

The Canon XF's will like be the nicest 1/3" cameras ever made. The lens is supposed to be awesome, the LCD excellent w/ vectorscope and waveform, impressive solid state workflow a/ a nice 4:2:2 50mbs codec. But you're still paying over $6K for 1/3".

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

it seems that you didn't read my second post.. well, I never heard that canon ever made any kind of compression except for their RAW files and this a simple strate data compression.. zip like..
I've never seen any RAW motion compression codec except two: one is redcode.. two is cineform raw.. I you don't wanna know how much such a compression technology adds to the cost of the camera and simply they don't have this kind of history.. if they did it.. then hello Canon.. but, this is not really their style..

What you say here, and what you say there are not the same thing at all.

You first said that recording 4K to CF was impossible. You did not mention RAW.

Then in another post you mention RED, and their investment in REDCODE.

If you really meant to mention Canon's history with codec development, then you should have mentioned it initially. I realize that language may be a barrier, but I figure you just did what we all do from time to time- not say what we mean. Where I have a problem is that you are blaming me for you not saying what you meant.

In any case I disagree with your statement about Canon's ability to develop a codec.

Developing a 4K RAW codec isn't that hard. Canon has a LOT more experience developing codecs than RED did before they developed REDCODE.

I doubt they would though.

I figure if they did "4K: it would just be MPEG-2 very highly compressed. If we are really lucky it might be MPEG-4.

I am skeptical about ever seeing any real customer oriented camera development from Canon. They just do what they want to do.

They make cool things from time to time. Mostly thats coincidence- like the DSLR video. They had no idea how it would be received, and if they did know they would probably have just cancelled the feature.

The only place they really listen is in their professional markets- their high end DSLR's and their ENG video lenses. That's it... and "really listen" is a relative term.

They also don't deliver on their promises. Canon promised to give me a beta firmware in May for the 7D with AGC disabling for a shoot early this month. Then not a word. Here it is practically July and not a peep.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

We must shoot different things, cause I can tell you moire and aliasing on the 7D comes up ALL the time. Shooting every weekend for the past two months has resulted in Moire shots in EVERY set of shots. Mind you, it's not on all shots, but enough that some really good shots were unusable.

I think perhaps we are shooting with different camera settings.

I advise you to test with a Neutral Picture style, with all settings at 0 especially sharpness. I also suggest testing with contrast set to -1 and color tone to -1, which represents my "User 1" setting.

The sharpness and contrast settings are digital enhancements and do not represent what the sensor is seeing.

If you need sharpness then please do it in post.

As you can see I do use the camera's contrast option, but I keep it near 0... it actually processes to image to reduce contrast if you lower it. ) is processed as well, but it seems to most closely represent what the sensor is seeing.

If you are shooting with these sorts of settings and still getting such poor results then we have a mystery.

Have a look at some material I shot with the 7D. These are frame grabs from 1080p video.

http://www.starshippolaris.com/wordpress/?p=720

I will say those uniforms did moire a bit, not the red leather, but the standard crew uniforms. It was only at certain distances- usually closeups.

To that end I preferred the 85mm with aperture at f/2 instead of my normal apertures of f/2.8 or f/4. That little extra bit of blur cured it in most scenes, I think all actually.

Now my experience is opposite yours. We shot 33 pages on the set you see in the page I linked to. Of that, we had to deal with moire on about 8 shots, only on 1 or two did we have to accept moire. Both were wide shots, 17-20mm at f/2.8. It was usually a minor detail and not the whole image wigging out like you report.

Later on on a green screen shoot for the same show, we had one issue in 15 pages over three days. It was on the green screen of all things. I walked out, tapped the greens screen so it moved back an inch or so, problem solved.

I think I already mentioned my results with some Starfleet uniforms.

I have done some tests with trees, and have not seen an issue with my settings on the 7D. My tests are usually done with the crappy kit 18-135 lens at f/4 or f/5.6. Those. were shot at 720p/60 in the rain. On one shot, where I have rain crossing distant trees waving in the wind, I get macroblocking. Of course all my shots were of that sort that day... and the rest are fine

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

The Canon XF's will like be the nicest 1/3" cameras ever made. The lens is supposed to be awesome, the LCD excellent w/ vectorscope and waveform, impressive solid state workflow a/ a nice 4:2:2 50mbs codec. But you're still paying over $6K for 1/3".

Agreed.

It pains me to see such nice engineering go into such a useless camera.

If Canon had delivered that camera 2 years ago, they could have had a huge hit on their hands. Today, they seriously need to lower the price. Then need to match the EX1R's price point with the XF305. Right now the XF300 exceeds the EX1R's price.

I'll happily take a XF305, but with a sensor block designed around the 7D's sensor. That and some EF & EF-S Canon video glass please.