7d vs 5d vs Red Scarlet (Ultimate Question!!)

Chris Gotzinger · October 15th, 2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kain Yun

Download the raw video midway down the page:
Canon EOS 7D Hands-on Preview: 14. Samples: Digital Photography Review

Every frame of 5D/7D footage is full of codec related issues.

Such as? I don't see blocking or codec-induced "crawlies" in any of the motion or anywhere else. And it's not the codec's fault that the highlights are clipping.

I think you're going to have to point out at least one codec-related issue on a screengrab because I don't see any. Does anyone?

P.S.: Several frames blur out significantly because the camera is shaking. Nothing to do with the codec there either.

Bill Pryor · October 15th, 2009, 08:51 AM

This discussion is "deja vu all over again." When professional HDV cameras came out, people trashed the codec, yet it's used by thousands quite successfully and even on the big screen. It is true that you can't push it as much as some other codecs--which means you have to be professional in your exposure and white balancing; you can't be sloppy as you can with different codecs. Presumably H.264 will be similar. In the hands of people who know what they're doing, it will be fine. You under or over expose something, you can't do as much correction as you can with something else.

Brian Drysdale · October 15th, 2009, 09:49 AM

I don't really think you can compare these things on the web. You can get all sorts of artefacts from the distribution network that have nothing to do with the original material.

My experience is that fine moving objects like leaves and grass tend to throw things with the codecs.

Regarding the 5DII on the big screen, the comments I've read on the BSC evaluation varied between "interesting" and "awful", it was the EX3 that impressed. Perhaps that was early days and there has been the objection was that the camera was used straight out of the box, so possibly the jury is still out in that regard. Although, the resolution figures referred to in another thread do tend to suggest that big screen detail won't be its forte.

Chris Gotzinger · October 15th, 2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

I don't really think you can compare these things on the web. You can get all sorts of artefacts from the distribution network that have nothing to do with the original material.

The link that was provided appears to be an original .MOV file straight out of the 7D, so I don't object to using this to judge the quality of the codec.

Quote:

Although, the resolution figures referred to in another thread do tend to suggest that big screen detail won't be its forte.

Do you have a link? While aliasing is my big (and only major) caveat with the 5D, I was very surprised to find that properly focused clips contain a ton of detail.
What I did was extract screengrabs from various videos I shot. Then I scaled these down to DVD resolution and scaled them back up. There was a massive difference, no huge surprise there.
But when I scaled them down to 720p and back up to 1080p, I still noticed a difference in detail. So I concluded that it must resolve more than 720p. Probably not a true 1080p but if it's somewhere between 720p and 1080p then that's a pretty good result I'd say.

Daniel Browning · October 15th, 2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Gotzinger

While aliasing is my big (and only major) caveat with the 5D, I was very surprised to find that properly focused clips contain a ton of detail.

If you consider aliasing to be detail, then you're right, the 5D2 clips do contain a ton of "detail".

But if you don't consider aliasing to be a valid part of "detail", then the story comes out much differently. For example, in a normal 1080p camera, you can measure the resolution in the form of line pairs per picture height (lp/PH), from 1 lp/PH on up. At some point, you will start to see aliasing. In my ideal 1080p camera, it will go all the way to 360 lp/PH with no aliasing at all. On other cameras, aliasing starts at around 300 lp/PH. On the 5D2, the aliasing starts at a *very* low resolution. I haven't measured it but I'd guess under 200 lp/PH.

Almost any camera blows the 5D2 out of the water when it comes to alias-free resolution.

Alex Leith · October 15th, 2009, 11:58 AM

Resolution test...

About 800v x 700h ish (is what another poster on another board said)? But I couldn't read what this chart means for the life of me. And no aliasing on the diagonals!? Can see moire patterning, though.

Chris Gotzinger · October 15th, 2009, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I haven't measured it but I'd guess under 200 lp/PH.

I prefer some real information like what Alex posted. His Vimeo link says:
"Resolution measured @ approximately 1200x900 pixels"

This seems reasonable, and it's "a tiny bit" more than 200 lp/PH.

Daniel Browning · October 15th, 2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Gotzinger

I prefer some real information like what Alex posted.

I'm sorry that you were not able to understand the information I posted. I'll try to put it more simply.

There are many ways to measure resolution. For one, you could completely ignore aliasing and just measure the maximum number of lines possible. With such a ridiculous methodology, you could, for example, measure 1500 l/PH in the 7D test linked above.
Second, you could measure resolution at some arbitrary and subjective level, where there is still a strong aliasing, but it is amount that you, personally, find acceptable.
Third, you could measure the resolution at which there is no aliasing.

The point is that the first and second are very far from the third in DSLR video. In high quality video cameras they are very close together. It's so bad in the 7D that the aliasing actually went off the chart. It only went down to 500 l/PH, but the aliasing was still very strong. You need a chart with far lower resolution in order to measure just how bad the 7D is.

So again, if you consider "aliasing" to be "detail", then the 7D can hit 1500 l/PH. But if you measure the amount of alias-free resolution, it's somewhere well under 500 l/PH (166 lp/PH if you use a Nyquist of 3 lp/PH).

Chris Gotzinger · October 16th, 2009, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Gotzinger

I'm sorry that you were not able to understand the information I posted.

I understood you fine. According to your definition of "detail" (a resolution with no aliasing), these cameras are about SD quality. Not a lot of people will agree with this.

Daniel Browning · October 16th, 2009, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Gotzinger

According to your definition of "detail" (a resolution with no aliasing), these cameras are about SD quality.

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Gotzinger

Not a lot of people will agree with this.

You're right. I'm part of a small minority of people who dislike aliasing very much. It so happens that most video camera manufacturers are also in that minority, but perhaps video DSLR will change that.

I'm also in a minority about many other problems that commonly affect any video camera, but "not a lot of people" consider them problems: oversharpening, posterization, poor color accuracy, interlace twitter, oversaturation, compression artifacts, missed focus, clipped highlights, crushed shadows, chromatic aberration, harsh bokeh, distortion, camera shake, and many more. Fortunately, my 5D2 does far better than most cameras in most of these areas (with some notable exceptions).

I don't know what percentage of people would agree with me about those things either. Probably very few. But to me, aliasing is just another one of those problem areas, although I dislike it more than all the others.

Chris Gotzinger · October 16th, 2009, 06:08 AM

Quote:

You're right. I'm part of a small minority of people who dislike aliasing very much.

I dislike aliasing as much as other artifacts, but it just doesn't occur all that often in real-world applications.

To me, the 5D/7D have too many advantages for this to be a killer argument. And if you think about it, how many artifacts do we put up with when we watch anamorphic feature films? Blue streaks on light sources, ugly oval shaped Bokeh, heavy barrel distortion.

I watched Lymelife recently, an independent movie with Alec Baldwin shot on anamorphic 35mm. There's one scene where two women talk in a supermarket. One is on the left of the frame, the other is on the right of the frame. While the center of the frame was sharp, both women were quite blurred and showed clearly visible chromatic abberation. Poor lens performance towards the sides. How many people will even notice let alone be bothered by it?

Mikko Topponen · October 16th, 2009, 07:33 AM

I've shot a lot of 5d material and there has been NO shots that have been ruined by aliasing. And the resolution is absolutely wonderful. Way better than any 35mm adapters with regular videocameras like the sony ex-1 could ever hope to achieve.

Dan Brockett · October 16th, 2009, 09:00 AM

Reality check:

How many people in this thread have honestly EVER had their material shown theatrically? We should do an anonymous poll.

It always cracks me up how almost everyone on all of the sites I frequent go on and on about how their camera must have XXXX and YYYYY and ZZZZ codec and features so that the image will look good on the "big screen", yet 99% of their work is only seen by an audience on the web or SD DVD. Almost any camera on the market today, through the use of good lighting, composition and movement, can be made to look amazingly good for the web or SD DVD.

Generally, if you have the money for a filmout, or an HDCAM or HDCAM SR master for 1080 projection digitally, you usually have the resources to shoot on a more sophisticated camera than a $1,700.00 DSLR anyway or at least you should.

720 vs. 1080
8bit vs. 10bit
4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4
Long GOP vs. intraframe
native resolution sensors vs. pixels shifted
RAW vs. processed images

None of this stuff should REALLY matters to 99% of the people who pontificate endlessly about it. There are a people that this stuff should matter to. But the vast majority of them are not shooting with DSLRs and prosumer cameras and are not on the web debating endlessly about it.

Just my .02.

Dan

Bill Pryor · October 16th, 2009, 09:28 AM

Well, I have and lots of others have, not just at festivals but often for small theatrical runs, as well as on various TV networks in the U.S., Canada and Europe. Anybody who knows what he's doing can work within the limitations of most any professional camera and make the footage look good. Not as good as the high end gear under the same conditions, but good enough to work. Hell, look at those guys who did that disgusting Crank 2 movie shot mostly with little single chip AVCHD cameras. They got shots they couldn't have got any other way and they looked good. Unfortunately the film was putrid, but teenage boys like it.

Footage from the 5D is cropping up everywhere even on network shows, people are using it on Steadicams to intercut with 35mm footage. No, the 7D is not going to be a Red killer, and nobody who knows anything would suggest that, but it looks a hell of a lot better than many other cameras costing a lot more and in the hands of good cinematographers is going to be a valuable tool. I've even seen footage from that little Lumix GH-1 that looks better than HVX200 footage, even though it has a codec people call amateur. Who cares, if a talented person can make good movies with it. Nobody's making anybody go out and buy an HDSLR. People who have bigger chip "real" video cameras aren't going to dump them for a hybrid. These cameras are like any other cameras: another tool.

Alister Chapman · October 16th, 2009, 10:43 AM

Something that seems to be forgotten is that not everyone wants shallow DoF. Can you imagine what it would be like trying to cover a sports event with long lenses and ultra shallow DoF. How about racing, where only the leader is in focus, assuming the camera operator is good enough to pull focus on moving object. The majority of television applications need deep depth of field. Large sensor, shallow DoF wont work on chat shows where you want to have all the guests in focus at once. any of the most breathtaking shots seen on TV rely on deep DoF, like the opening waterfall shots from the BBC's "Planet Earth" or the vast herds of cattle roaming the Savannah.

Sure there is a place for shallow DoF, but I think it is a fad that is currently being overdone. Next time you watch a theatrical release film look at how few supper shallow DoF shots there are. For these reasons I don't believe that large format sensor camera will ever replace 2/3" cameras for the majority of productions. Give me a well sorted 2/3" camera with proper optical low pass filtering tailored to the recording resolution. I don't want to go back to the days of making sure any on screen talent doesn't wear clothes with patterns or stripes for fear of moire and aliasing.

October 15th, 2009, 11:58 AM	#51
Alex Leith Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Northampton, England Posts: 500	Resolution test... Canon 7D - Resolution test on Vimeo About 800v x 700h ish (is what another poster on another board said)? But I couldn't read what this chart means for the life of me. And no aliasing on the diagonals!? Can see moire patterning, though. __________________ Alex

October 16th, 2009, 09:00 AM	#58
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	Spec-O-mania! Reality check: How many people in this thread have honestly EVER had their material shown theatrically? We should do an anonymous poll. It always cracks me up how almost everyone on all of the sites I frequent go on and on about how their camera must have XXXX and YYYYY and ZZZZ codec and features so that the image will look good on the "big screen", yet 99% of their work is only seen by an audience on the web or SD DVD. Almost any camera on the market today, through the use of good lighting, composition and movement, can be made to look amazingly good for the web or SD DVD. Generally, if you have the money for a filmout, or an HDCAM or HDCAM SR master for 1080 projection digitally, you usually have the resources to shoot on a more sophisticated camera than a $1,700.00 DSLR anyway or at least you should. 720 vs. 1080 8bit vs. 10bit 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4 Long GOP vs. intraframe native resolution sensors vs. pixels shifted RAW vs. processed images None of this stuff should REALLY matters to 99% of the people who pontificate endlessly about it. There are a people that this stuff should matter to. But the vast majority of them are not shooting with DSLRs and prosumer cameras and are not on the web debating endlessly about it. Just my .02. Dan

October 16th, 2009, 10:43 AM	#60
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	Something that seems to be forgotten is that not everyone wants shallow DoF. Can you imagine what it would be like trying to cover a sports event with long lenses and ultra shallow DoF. How about racing, where only the leader is in focus, assuming the camera operator is good enough to pull focus on moving object. The majority of television applications need deep depth of field. Large sensor, shallow DoF wont work on chat shows where you want to have all the guests in focus at once. any of the most breathtaking shots seen on TV rely on deep DoF, like the opening waterfall shots from the BBC's "Planet Earth" or the vast herds of cattle roaming the Savannah. Sure there is a place for shallow DoF, but I think it is a fad that is currently being overdone. Next time you watch a theatrical release film look at how few supper shallow DoF shots there are. For these reasons I don't believe that large format sensor camera will ever replace 2/3" cameras for the majority of productions. Give me a well sorted 2/3" camera with proper optical low pass filtering tailored to the recording resolution. I don't want to go back to the days of making sure any on screen talent doesn't wear clothes with patterns or stripes for fear of moire and aliasing. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

October 15th, 2009, 08:51 AM	#47
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	This discussion is "deja vu all over again." When professional HDV cameras came out, people trashed the codec, yet it's used by thousands quite successfully and even on the big screen. It is true that you can't push it as much as some other codecs--which means you have to be professional in your exposure and white balancing; you can't be sloppy as you can with different codecs. Presumably H.264 will be similar. In the hands of people who know what they're doing, it will be fine. You under or over expose something, you can't do as much correction as you can with something else.

October 15th, 2009, 09:49 AM	#48
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	I don't really think you can compare these things on the web. You can get all sorts of artefacts from the distribution network that have nothing to do with the original material. My experience is that fine moving objects like leaves and grass tend to throw things with the codecs. Regarding the 5DII on the big screen, the comments I've read on the BSC evaluation varied between "interesting" and "awful", it was the EX3 that impressed. Perhaps that was early days and there has been the objection was that the camera was used straight out of the box, so possibly the jury is still out in that regard. Although, the resolution figures referred to in another thread do tend to suggest that big screen detail won't be its forte.

October 16th, 2009, 07:33 AM	#57
Mikko Topponen Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: helsinki Posts: 104	I've shot a lot of 5d material and there has been NO shots that have been ruined by aliasing. And the resolution is absolutely wonderful. Way better than any 35mm adapters with regular videocameras like the sony ex-1 could ever hope to achieve.

October 16th, 2009, 09:28 AM	#59
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Well, I have and lots of others have, not just at festivals but often for small theatrical runs, as well as on various TV networks in the U.S., Canada and Europe. Anybody who knows what he's doing can work within the limitations of most any professional camera and make the footage look good. Not as good as the high end gear under the same conditions, but good enough to work. Hell, look at those guys who did that disgusting Crank 2 movie shot mostly with little single chip AVCHD cameras. They got shots they couldn't have got any other way and they looked good. Unfortunately the film was putrid, but teenage boys like it. Footage from the 5D is cropping up everywhere even on network shows, people are using it on Steadicams to intercut with 35mm footage. No, the 7D is not going to be a Red killer, and nobody who knows anything would suggest that, but it looks a hell of a lot better than many other cameras costing a lot more and in the hands of good cinematographers is going to be a valuable tool. I've even seen footage from that little Lumix GH-1 that looks better than HVX200 footage, even though it has a codec people call amateur. Who cares, if a talented person can make good movies with it. Nobody's making anybody go out and buy an HDSLR. People who have bigger chip "real" video cameras aren't going to dump them for a hybrid. These cameras are like any other cameras: another tool.