The 7d is tempermental, but also forgiving

Perrone Ford · December 13th, 2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

The info PDF I found on the site is dated 2007, which is pre RED One.

The BBC specs sheets do get up dated, but I suspect the current DSLRs would be counted as SD same as HDV and Super 16.

When I asked the local producer if there was an update, she said no, and that is the one she refers to for productions. So there you go.

It's pre RED One, it's Pre XDCamEX also which is why I can't hand off my EX1 stuff as HD. It passes muster for SD.

Brian Drysdale · December 13th, 2009, 01:45 PM

I know people who are shooting HD using the EX series fitted with a Nanoflash.

Perrone Ford · December 13th, 2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

The info PDF I found on the site is dated 2007, which is pre RED One.

The BBC specs sheets do get up dated, but I suspect the current DSLRs would be counted as SD same as HDV and Super 16.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

I know people who are shooting HD using the EX series fitted with a Nanoflash.

Right,

According to Red Book I still don't pass because I am shooting CMOS, but I think I can get them to look past that. But I can't hand them XDCamEX footage. HDCam would be ok, so I am trying to get a NanoFlash next fiscal so I can actually hand off "broadcast grade" footage.

The problem, is I have to choose between buying the Nano, or buying Avid... I can't get both... UGH!

Brian Luce · December 13th, 2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

The BBC specs sheets do get up dated, but I suspect the current DSLRs would be counted as SD same as HDV and Super 16.

Amazing that they count super 16 as SD when its resolution exceeds 1080p, not to mention the 14 stops of latitude.

Brian Drysdale · December 13th, 2009, 02:53 PM

It's the grain that is seemingly the problem for the engineers, it's too demanding on the transmission codec. 2 Perf 35mm is limited to 250 ASA stock. Although, I suppose by that reckoning 100 ASA or less Super 16 should be fine and of course you could de-grain.

There is a bit of engineering politics going on as well I suspect.

Brian Luce · December 13th, 2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Right,

According to Red Book I still don't pass because I am shooting CMOS, but I think I can get them to look past that. But I can't hand them XDCamEX footage. HDCam would be ok, so I am trying to get a NanoFlash next fiscal so I can actually hand off "broadcast grade" footage.

The problem, is I have to choose between buying the Nano, or buying Avid... I can't get both... UGH!

Just rent a Nano for an hour, shoot a little footage that you'll include in your doc, then when you submit say "Yeah, it's XDcam EX, but I used the Nanoflash and ummm, I think you'll be impressed with the look I was able to achieve and anyway who are you takin', Longhorns or the Tide in the BCS?". You wouldn't be lying, you did in fact shoot with the Nano, that 99% was NOT Nano footage is a mere caveat that you needn't elaborate upon.

Nano and the native 35mbs is pretty close from what I've seen.

Perrone Ford · December 13th, 2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

Just rent a Nano for an hour, shoot a little footage that you'll include in your doc, then when you submit say "Yeah, it's XDcam EX, but I used the Nanoflash and ummm, I think you'll be impressed with the look I was able to achieve and anyway who are you takin', Longhorns or the Tide in the BCS?". You wouldn't be lying, you did in fact shoot with the Nano, that 99% was NOT Nano footage is a mere caveat that you needn't elaborate upon.

Nano and the native 35mbs is pretty close from what I've seen.

The closest place to rent a Nano is about 6 states away. That's a no go. And I work with these people every month. Do you really think I want to misrepresent myself?

And you can't tell the difference between 280Mbs I-Frame and XDCamEX? Really? Did you see the Footage test I put on Vimeo when I got the EX1? Dude.. it wasn't pretty.

Karl Lohninger · December 14th, 2009, 06:37 AM

The BBC specs mean zilch, nada, nothing. I've worked on too many BBC shows that weren't even close to what's in their 'white paper'. If what you shoot is interesting in any way, it might as well be shot with an iPhone. Content beats tech specs 11 times out of 10.

Brian Drysdale · December 14th, 2009, 09:52 AM

That depends if they are HD shows or SD shows. Even then for HD they allow a percentage of SD content, however, there will always be exceptions if there is no other way of obtaining material.

Brian Luce · December 14th, 2009, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl Lohninger

The BBC specs mean zilch, nada, nothing. I've worked on too many BBC shows that weren't even close to what's in their 'white paper'. If what you shoot is interesting in any way, it might as well be shot with an iPhone. Content beats tech specs 11 times out of 10.

I have no idea what ESPN HD's specs are but I do know they air some horrible looking SD mixed in the with there HD content and I also know a guy whose had stuff broadcast with ESPNHD that he shot on a crummy HDV camera.

Barry Green · December 14th, 2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivan Pin

Thanks Barry!

According dpReview all DSLRs are quite close in Dinamic Range at ISO 200:
- Nikon D300s usable range - 8.4,
- Canon 5D Mark II - 8.4,
- Pentax K-7 - 8.4,
- Canon 7D - 8.3,
- Lumix GH1 - 7.7.

Of course I wonder what the dynamic range would show EX1 on their methodology?
Probably no one will answer this question.

I haven't shot the Stouffer with an EX1, but I did shoot an Ambi-Combi chart, which should be comparable enough, and it showed the EX1 at over 10 stops.

December 13th, 2009, 01:45 PM	#32
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	I know people who are shooting HD using the EX series fitted with a Nanoflash.

December 13th, 2009, 02:53 PM	#35
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	It's the grain that is seemingly the problem for the engineers, it's too demanding on the transmission codec. 2 Perf 35mm is limited to 250 ASA stock. Although, I suppose by that reckoning 100 ASA or less Super 16 should be fine and of course you could de-grain. There is a bit of engineering politics going on as well I suspect.

December 14th, 2009, 06:37 AM	#38
Karl Lohninger Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 82	The BBC specs mean zilch, nada, nothing. I've worked on too many BBC shows that weren't even close to what's in their 'white paper'. If what you shoot is interesting in any way, it might as well be shot with an iPhone. Content beats tech specs 11 times out of 10.

December 14th, 2009, 09:52 AM	#39
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	That depends if they are HD shows or SD shows. Even then for HD they allow a percentage of SD content, however, there will always be exceptions if there is no other way of obtaining material.