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 :)

waiting for scarlet

True digital cinema cameras, will quickly replace the DSLR's in major budget films as soon as they are readily available in practical compact sized formats capable of filling the specialty shot niche DSLR's are mostly used for. Image quality will win out.
 
Brigham Edgar said:
I too have listened to Shane's opinion and experience with the 5D as you obviously have. He's a very talented and experienced DOP obviously but that does not necessarily mean his word is gospel and the way it is. And in all reality i am sure you could find a thousand DOP's to one of the same view of the quality of the 5D's image. He recently spoke on the Red Centre podcast and he mostly spoke about the excitement and possibilities of the size and ease of use of the system and this is where he seemed to be basing his opinion from with the potential of something of this size to filmaking, the lenses it can take and the possibilities it gives the film maker...not much at all about the quality of the video image at all. It was an extensive interview and enjoyable to listen to. It's exciting times with the size and potential of small ultra compact cameras and it's giving filmakers of all budgets get opportunities to get images they could not have before.

A lot of those factors that were listed to improve the quality of the image just will not change quality of the image. There is no escaping the way the image is created from a consumer grade H264 compressed, line skipped, artefacting image with a slow reset time. It's plain fact and unfortunately some just don't want to believe it or admit it. It's a great camera for what it is but that's were it lies. No amount of hype and misinformation can get around this. Also remember that tests of all digital HD cameras were done not all that long ago by the BBC and with the white paper released the 5D did not even make the first hurdle and was 'let go' for the remainder of testing as it could not qualify and deliver as a HD camera. You pay for what you get, and the Canons do punch above their weight but are still down there.

Standards are kept and upheld within the industry and ultimately it's judged correctly where it matters. The public do not hold the standards about the quality of an image, professionals do. And that goes for a lot in the world and not just with cameras. My wife doesn't care if she watches crappy internet video on our television or DVDs or even Bluray to a point, she doesn't care...so does that mean we all should just not bother caring and say 'aahhhh that's good enough, buggar it, it'll do'. I mean really...my little Panasonic waterproof, shockproof point and shoot stills camera shoots 720p video with AVCHD lite codec...i too could make films with that and call it HD video.

I think this thread is going towards....:jacked:
Click to expand...

I would like to state that i'm not a Canon fanboy. I've been using the red, film etc and i'm aware of the problems of HDSLR video. I don't think it's worth coming from a mildly defensive standpoint with all of this. This is a valid and interesting thread, and the discussion we are having is for the good of our education.

Shane has talked about image quality, you can watch a video of him giving a talk on HDSLR's on his website, and he also talks about it in his blog. I guess the realities of the image quality he has been able to capture will be obvious once the film is released. We'll then see how much the downsides of the camera have hindered his visual storytelling and the quality of the imagery he has been able to achieve. Of course Shane's word isn't gospel, but his work and experience with HDSLR's is valid and can help to improve their capabilities for those who are interested to learn from him. No one's getting brainwashed here, you only have to point a 5D at some bricks in the distance with a deep focus shot to get a swift wake up call.

The points i gave on ways to improve image quality are from Shane's exhaustive experience, and tips he then gave that have made a difference to him. I chose to pass them on because i have found that all points do improve the image quality possible.

Correct me if i'm wrong but from what i understand the BBC rejected the 5D due to the degrading in image quality after BBC compression was added and the 30fps issue? For the cinema however this compression will not be present. Either way it does not matter really. Other TV stations are using 5D's in production, the latest being an episode of House that will be filmed with 5D's (so i've read).

I believe standards should always be kept. The constant work towards better imagery and technology by professionals who are always trying to improve their art is what creates the fantastic films and technology we see today. I don't believe in an 'oh well' attitude. I do not mean to convey this.

When intercutting your panasonic camera with 35mm, i imagine most people would see an obvious difference. We'll have to wait to see the soon to be released tests of 35mm and canon to see how they do in comparison.

Just like with the genesis of the RED, the heavy criticisms are going to bring us better cameras, that's what it's all about.
 
David Rasberry said:
True digital cinema cameras, will quickly replace the DSLR's in major budget films as soon as they are readily available in practical compact sized formats capable of filling the specialty shot niche DSLR's are mostly used for. Image quality will win out.
Click to expand...

absolutely. Can't wait for the day we have a small compact 35mm+ digital camera that shoots raw without line skipping etc. Hopefully the scarlet is the one. Exciting times!!!
 
Correct me if i'm wrong but from what i understand the BBC rejected the 5D due to the degrading in image quality after BBC compression was added and the 30fps issue? For the cinema however this compression will not be present.
Click to expand...

I looked at the BBC test reports on several cameras, Red included. They stopped the test on the 5DII based on the zone chart resolution of the native 1080p Canon image file. Didn't make HD resolution with the chart they used. Aliasing and moire were visible down to around 450 lines vertical, SD territory.
 
David Rasberry said:
I looked at the BBC test reports on several cameras, Red included. They stopped the test on the 5DII based on the zone chart resolution of the native 1080p Canon image file. Didn't make HD resolution with the chart they used. Aliasing and moire were visible down to around 450 lines vertical, SD territory.
Click to expand...

Do you know how i can get to see the test reports? Would be fascinated to read through them. I saw resolution charts of the canon at another website that showed the aliasing around 600 lines, was pretty revealing.
 
David Rasberry said:
I looked at the BBC test reports on several cameras, Red included. They stopped the test on the 5DII based on the zone chart resolution of the native 1080p Canon image file. Didn't make HD resolution with the chart they used. Aliasing and moire were visible down to around 450 lines vertical, SD territory.
Click to expand...

:smilielol5:
That is all..
 
Steve Das said:
How is throwing Canons into all
sorts of small spaces and angles going to give us better films ?
Click to expand...


the smaller camera gives you access to real "sets" you wont have to build half of an office or chop a car in half

the low light gets better and the cameras are cheap ..like shane said with the submarine

he was shooting in a real situation in areal sub with the small camera

if you can save bundles of money on sets and be put in realer situations

you can spend that 100 k on a better actor or stunts or props

instead of a camaro you can buy an Aston martin .. its hard for me to get my points across with type

but those are advantages to give a smaller budget movie credibility and or flexibility ....imo
 
I've been following many threads like this on here and have to say, it is quite interesting the number of people that have similar feelings or plans as I do myself.

I started with a Canon HV30 and built a 35mm adapter for it. The low light performance and just ergonomics of this setup made me waste a LOT of time during shooting stuff. It was a great learning experience and I got some neat shots, but I felt like I was recreating the wheel.

Second, bought a D90. Rolling shutter and aliasing in this camera is HORRIBLE. No exposure control. Even wrote my own iPhone app (iXposure) to help with getting repeatable exposure settings. Once again, I felt like I was recreating the wheel.

Used an HVX200 on a project. Like most cameras in this range, they are great cameras, but the low light performance was still a problem. Adding a few different 35mm systems, same thing, even more light loss. For ME the cost in investment didn't justify the results.

Along comes the 7D, I buy it. I do love the camera, but as I have said elsewhere the aliasing and moire are really bad if you are not careful. The low light performance is awesome (not as good as the 5D but this price was more realistic for me). I use this camera for payed projects and people love it. They don't notice the problems, even if I do.

But, as David pointed out, a camera that is dedicated to video will win out. There are MANY issues with the 7D that I know I wouldn't deal with on the scarlet. Small file size limits, moire, even worse 60p acquisition, aliasing, audio capture issues, and on and on. (Win out of course if the pricing is right, which I really have no basis of comment on). Of course, I am paying more for the Scarlet so I understand why these things are fixed! :)

My plan is to start with the Scarlet Fixed, learn how I feel about 2/3 sensor and continue to use the 7D for extremely tight shallow DoF shots. Then, I'll decide if I want a 2/3 Cinema and go that route with custom lens or S35 with custom lens. I want to go S35 but I admit my experience with 2/3 is not such that I feel I know yet what to expect.

The problem most people are dealing with, what do I buy right now to get me by till the Scarlets ship? And when is that? It was a lot easier for me to drop $1600 for the 7D than any of the HD cams that I knew all I'd be thinking is "Wish I had the Scarlet" because for me, low light performance is absolutely key in a lot that I shoot. I love my 30mm F1.4 lens :)

If canon came out with a 7D replacement that didn't line skip but did full raw, you bet I'd think about upgrading my 7D, but it wouldn't prevent my desire for the scarlet. Things like the redmote and MANY MANY MANY other features I cannot wait to be at my beck and call :) A lot of the ergonomics of using a camera and the tools in it are so useful. You don't even get zebra stripes on the 7D!

These things do have value that sometimes means less chance of making mistakes. It means making your job easier.

What's another issue with the 7D? Without an HD field monitor with you, you have NO WAY of knowing if you have aliasing or moire in a shot. There is no zoom on playback to even check problem areas. Problem? Yes, because you'd be amazed at how many patterns are around you that you didn't even notice. I've lost some work to it. But I overshoot just in case.

Still, I use one and love working with it.

As the original poster said 'waiting for scarlet' so true :)
 
k.wasley said:
Do you know how i can get to see the test reports? Would be fascinated to read through them. I saw resolution charts of the canon at another website that showed the aliasing around 600 lines, was pretty revealing.
Click to expand...

I didn't save the link, but I will see if I can find it again.
 
Here is a link:

http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/

Yes it's an interesting debate and every time a new camera system is released that pushes outside its boundaries the argument of how good it actually is will go on and on and on. And as i have said before, no matter what quality something is shot in people will watch it and not care (to a point) if the story and the drama is there. But it's not about that. I know so many people that have HDD's full of movies they have ripped at half standard def compressed beyond all hell and just watch away happily...they don't care. So the argument is pretty mute there.

I do not know the exact size of the 7D sensor to compare to 2/3inch but i would guess they would be in similar ballparks. But the DOF would be exactly the same if you were using the same lenses on any sensor. The FOV is what changes (effectively cropping).

Small cameras with ultra low light capabilities offer just another tool in the box and this is always a good thing. I have used the 5D twice as a specialty cam and it has been great. Mind you, i shot around 5.6 so it was sharp as it could not be operated...kind of defeated having that FF sensor and it's DOF:)

Scarlet 2/3 and it's projected feature set will absolutely make huge inroads against this area of the market and pricepoint. Being able to use all the Canon glass especially will make a lot of ground back but some diehards will still want their FF sensor for the correct FOV and this i believe is its downside. But how many people can successfully pull focus on a handheld camera, moving talent, running T1.4 on FF at 50mm+ ? But as i said before, it is quite still a LONG way from becoming reality...we havn't even seen the tattoo program on the EPIC-X yet, let alone all the stages rolling out on it then moving to Scarlet...long way to go i think and would not be surprised if its year end. Plenty of time for Canon to launch a new model with a lot of fixes...:)
 
No, the 7D is closer to the S35 from what I see, at least in one dimension. The 2/3 is much smaller.

And while the DoF is the same I agree in actually, that kind of comparison isn't really the full story if the FoV is what matters to you. I look at it in terms of the scene. For the same uncropped image, the DoF will be different in both shots. That's the point. The scarlet 2/3 is not going to give me the same freedom as my 7D in terms of really shallow DoF (and definitely not as much as a 5D). But the S35 will for the same FoV. With the 7D I can work in really tight locations and still get that shallow DoF. I think that's what people are enjoying with these larger sensors.

Granted, for VFX work and fight scenes, I cannot WAIT for the scarlet. It's smaller sensor is going to give me much deeper focus and good light performance, win win.

I use F1.4 with a 30mm and do focus pulls with my 7D using a follow focus all the time. It's not hard if you are working with talent that can hit their marks.
 
Sterling Wescott said:
completely irrelevant, but interesting none the less.
Click to expand...




huh? not if you read my post .. it is exactly why i believe 7d/scarlet combo will be more than enough for some time

so irrelevant to what ?

this was not intended to be versus thread but why the smaller cheaper 1080 p looks nice not perfect camera will be more relevant than a 50-60000 5 -6 k camera

:cheers2:
 
k.wasley said:
If i may be so bold as to suggest a few basic things that Shane has spoken about...

Neutral picture style with contrast and sharpening at minimum, saturation down 2 or 3 notches depending on lenses. (he has also developed a custom picture style that insures highest dynamic range). Sharpen after in post if needed.

lighting optimizer, peripheral illumination, noise reduction off.

Convert all footage to cineform using neoscene, this aparrently unlocks extra detail in blacks. (i use prores since i don't own neoscene). Grade after this.

Good lenses. He was using panavision primos (which apparently gave the camera an extra 1.5 stops at both ends of the scale) until the lawsuit put a stop to it. He then switched to zeiss ZE's. Using these lenses meant sharper images that resolved well on the big screen, making the compressed 8bit colour space more workable. They also lent a better dynamic range.

Expose the camera like reversal film stock. Get the look in camera, use white balance and lighting to help achieve the desired colour, not grading.

Use Fast CF cards of at least 45mbit a sec with UDMA. This lessens compression artifacts and reduces rolling shutter issues.

The 5d creates a slightly superior image to the 7d.


I think it would also be important to say that i don't think many visually/technically educated people would say HDSLR video is at the same quality level as 35mm/red etc. But in the right hands, and when projected on a 40 foot screen is it good enough? For some who have dived into DSLR's, Shane Hurlbut being one, the answer is a resounding and liberating yes, in the context of the project he was working on. Shane has done direct comparisons (there is some footage on the way from a large test of DSLR vs 35mm and HD cameras). I think also that for the project he worked on DSLR's were liberating due to their size and maneuverability factor etc. Camera movements that would be impossible or hugely more expensive/time consuming with 35mm et al were unlocked with DSLR's. This meant a new world of visual possibilities and even a new visual language itself opened up that was exciting. The low light capability was also a big part. There was a sequence inside a nuclear submarine where large amounts of lighting/grip gear etc simply wasn't practical.

And a final thought. You, as an eminent and extremely experienced Cinematographer, can spot the 7d in Southland, but can the average audience member?
Click to expand...

Just a note to expand on Shane's tips, and this is from a Canon rep and is fairly new knowledge posted in the last few days (Thanks, TimurCivan)

Rule 1: ALWAYS keep the camera on Spot meter Exposure. ALWAYS. somethign about spot meter makes the video circuit play nice with the lower 1/3 of the signal range... AKA less noise and macro blocking.

Rule 2: ALWAYS use AdobeRGB colorspace for Video. ALWAYS. Somethign about AdobeRGB gives a more linear film like gamma curve, and less noise. (sort of like CineGamma on the DVX/HVX/HPX)

Rule 3: Always shoot "Neutral" Scene file. Because the less "look" the camera circuitry has to apply, the more it can allocate resources to compressing the picture more effectively.
 
chrislancaster said:
huh? not if you read my post .. it is exactly why i believe 7d/scarlet combo will be more than enough for some time

so irrelevant to what ?

this was not intended to be versus thread but why the smaller cheaper 1080 p looks nice not perfect camera will be more relevant than a 50-60000 5 -6 k camera

:cheers2:
Click to expand...
The link directs to a story about google entering the Smart tv market?
I agree with your point, however I think you posted the wrong link.
 
I think what Chris is getting at is that alot of programs will be streamed via the net to tv, in some kind of compressed format... so some of the flaws of the 7D etc may be hidden and/or the pristine images of a Red Epic might not look as good.
 
Jim Retar said:
I think what Chris is getting at is that alot of programs will be streamed via the net to tv, in some kind of compressed format... so some of the flaws of the 7D etc may be hidden and/or the pristine images of a Red Epic might not look as good.
Click to expand...

But this has already been happening, U-verse already does TV over IP, that doesn't mean anything regarding my television size.

If anything, TV over IP will surely be at 1080p speeds before too long, and let me tell you, 1080p with the 7D does not hide it's flaws :) Most things I acquire I down convert to 720p and they are still there (moire and aliasing).

Not to mention that the 7D already compresses the hell out of the video with H.264 and then it is getting compressed again for distribution.

I think people are missing the point on why you'd want a Red camera. To me it's called freedom of acquisition. It's about making the job of getting the video easier, and having more latitude with what you want to do with it at that point. For instance:

1) Red is more sensitive providing quite a few more stops of light. This means a lot more freedom in lighting and or shading.

2) No burned in settings from camera. More freedom with pushing the recorded images in post instead of losing information by throwing it out.

3) No compression artifacts, so if you didn't get the scene perfect in the camera, you can actually adjust it in post and not have the image fall apart because of the compression.

4) Recording more than 4G at a time.

5) Audio meters, video meters, of which there is NONE on a 7D.

6) No Moire or aliasing. This is the single hugest downfall of the Canon sensors. Until they read the entire sensor, this is not going away. It's horrible, you can't see it without a field monitor or after downloading on something else, and in 720p mode is just stupid bad.

7) No freedom for 1080p release if you want to crop or pan/scan a larger image with degradation at 1080p release. This is an AWESOME freedom with larger rez.

These are just a few off the top of my head. Don't get me wrong, I love my 7D, but I'll be glad for the day when I don't have to deal with all these headaches and can just worry about all the other ones that we deal with (focus, batteries charged, etc).

Compression technologies and bandwidth on TV, no matter where the digital is coming from, are only going to get better with time. It's not like that technology just stagnates.

Personally I feel like I am not paying for 3K~5K with Red, the resolution isn't as important to me, but the dynamic range ability and the post freedom of those bits is where my money is going. For $4750 I am going to get a camera to me that is VERY MUCH a better camera than the HVX200 we have now that we paid more for. In SO MANY different ways.

People forget that with something like the 7D you have to add on more equipment to even get to where a base model like the Scarlet Fixed is concerned. XLR inputs? Adjustable field monitor?
 
Jim Retar said:
I think what Chris is getting at is that alot of programs will be streamed via the net to tv, in some kind of compressed format... so some of the flaws of the 7D etc may be hidden and/or the pristine images of a Red Epic might not look as good.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how that would be possible, 5k>1080 vs. 720 whatever they really resolve>1080. no way a vDSRL from now will be better than a EPIC unless you are talking comparing some grade school kids epic video (how he got one I don't know) to one segment in Finchers new movie shot with a vDSLR (all hypothetical). but I do get the point of streaming media and that vDSLR's will shine in that area, I agree, but epic looking worse don't know where that came from.
 
7D throws away 80-90% of the sensor data before it compresses anything to H.264.

If Red can stream full 4k resolution video nearly indistinguishable from the uncompressed original at lower than MPEG4 HD data rates, as they have demonstrated to live audiences, I don't think streaming bandwidth will ultimately limit quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top