Regarding the candy vs. gourmet choice... the viewer never has a choice. The viewer watches the film/TV show/short/ad as presented. Nobody outside of an edit bay - or web forum - does an A/B comparison.

The options are 1) I liked the way it looked, 2) I didn't like the way it looked, and 3) I was paying attention to the story, so I didn't notice how it looked. As long as they don't go with number 2 (pun intended), it's good enough for most real world situations.

Of course, the client might be more picky. Gotta satisfy whoever is paying the bills.

That was my point in posting it. But since there are those that can tell, this is an opportunity to show how they can detect it.

I agree, if anyone knows I would like to see how they know. It looks from the comments on his site that most people are guessing based on jello or aliasing.

Yes. It's always good to have a reminder that resolution is just one small part of image quality, and image quality is just one small part of the production, and any given production is just one small part of a lifetime of productions.

I'm not sure if you understood my position. I don't make any assumptions about training, learning, or eventual appreciation over time. I'm talking about untrained, unlearned, and immediate appreciation. My idea is that there is a disconnect between the specific sensory inputs that they think they like on the surface level and the truly important, deep-down appreciation that they feel of a moving image as a whole.

Say you have two screenings. The candy screening is low res, bad aliasing, oversaturated, oversharpened, overcontrasty (blown whites & clipped blacks), 24 converted to 120hz, plastic noise reduction, and heavily compressed (low DR) audio. The gourmet screening has high res, no aliasing, normal saturation, normal sharpening, normal contrast (detail in whites and blacks), 24p left alone, normal amount of noise/grain, and high DR audio.

My opinion is that most people will say that they like the second (gourmet) screening a lot more. If they put it into words they might call it more realistic, immersive, beautiful, film-like, etc. The first screening they'll just not enjoy as much. If they try to say why, they might say it looked fake, didn't draw them in, unspectacular, and looks like their own home videos.

If you try to get specific with them, and do A/B comparisons asking "which one is sharper?" they'll still pick the aliased and oversharpened image. For color, they'll still say that oversaturated and overcontrasty one has better color. For sound, they'll pick the loudest low-DR one. And so on. They may rationalize the difference by saying that the gourmet movie was better in *spite* of having less aliasing, or despite normal sharpening; they may even suggest that the gourmet would have been better if you made it more like the first (candy) screening; not realizing those were the very factors that made them love the gourmet so much.

In other words, I think they prefer the gourmet screening but they don't know why. They think they like aliasing, and they say that they like aliasing, but if you actually give it to them they will like it less on levels that are more important and lasting.

My position is that there is a big disconnect between the important feelings about a motion image (immersive, beautiful, quality) and what the viewer *thinks* is the way to get that feeling (aliasing, sharpening, etc.). I think it's our job to ignore what they are asking for in order to give them what they really want. Aliasing tickles the most obvious outer layers of sensory input, but it doesn't go down deep to really satisfy.

What they really want is the best dining experience possible. They think the right way to get it is a bag of corn syrup. But if you actually give them what they say they want, they will dislike it very much. They wont say that the meal wasn't sweet enough, but they'll find other words for it, like "low production values", "lackluster", "like my own homemade meals". If you give them a gourmet meal, they will love it, but they wont know why.

The same thing applies to other areas of life. Say your car is leaking water into the carpet. You think it's the heater core. You drop it off at the mechanic and say it needs a new heater core ($1,000), without saying why. Before he starts, the mechanic discovers the water leak and finds that it's caused by a plugged hose ($1). He can probably guess that the real reason you dropped it off was because of the leak, not the heater core. You only think you want the heater core, when in reality you want the leak fixed. Now, he can give you what you're asking for, which is a new heater core, but that wont fix your real need. Or, he can give you what you really want, which is to stop the leak. Viewers want a good image. They ask for aliasing, oversharpening, 24p to 120 hz, etc., because on the surface of it they think that's what gives them a good image. I think there is a disconnect. The difference, of course, is that a leak is an obvious, objective fact that can be proven; whereas the true appreciation of an image is subjective, and my opinion that such a disconnect exists in most viewers is just that: an opinion.

On the subject of using the still image option of DSLR cameras rather than the video option, it is worth taking a look at Stop-Motion techniques to make videos rather than using the video mode. Here Andrew Kornylak uses the Nikon D3 (NOT the D3s) for making videos by shooting still images on the camera's fastest motordrive setting. See D3s thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/photo-hd...-d3s-720p.html

Andrew mentions about his work using the Nikon D3 on his blog "...It is pretty close to a video look, but a little different. I can shoot with strobes (like in the Nikki Blue commercial), and the color depth of even a cropped jpeg is better than the best HD video frame. I can make 11×14 prints from a frame grab, which sweetens the pot for a client looking to do a still and motion shoot without an outrageous production..."

Some more Stop-Motion video using the D2x and D3 can be found here:

Stillmotion - Motion projects shot with a Nikon D3 (and D2X) on Vimeo

You may be over thinking this. Sometimes people just like what they like. I like Candy and burgers. Chicken Kiev doesn't rock my world.

So then the simple question I put to you is: does the 7D look sharper than a 500-line video camera?

Or, let me put it another way -- how sharp does this wedge of a resolution chart look to you?
http://dvxuser.com/barry/7D-1080-Mid...ways-lines.jpg

Sure, whatever you'd like. Just pull out images that show actual resolved detail, since that's what this thread is about. Shoot charts, or shoot a newspaper at various text sizes, and let's see which one makes the text easier to read. I'd be willing to bet that if the test is conducted accurately, you'll find that the text is far more legible on an EX1 or HPX300 or even an HV20, than it is off of *any* HDSLR. Because those video cameras resolve more detail.

Don't just go shooting some random shot of trees or whatever, because that's where the aliasing gets to work its "magic". Shoot something where you actually want to be able to resolve detail, and you'll find the 1080p video cameras are better at it than the DSLRs are, hands down, no questions asked.

the 7d has footage that looks awesome and i can afford it.


case closed.

Barry:

But what if you need the depth of field control we get with the 7D and 5D. What is better then-- Those same video cameras with adapters, or the 7D/5D choice? That is the real question. I am interessted to hear what you have found regarding resolving power in that situation.

No, I do understand your position, and I still think that your assumption is incorrect.... based primarily on the fact that I used to assume the same thing. I used to 'fix' peoples TVs for them by turning down sharpness, saturation, contrast, etc to get a more natural, organic looking image - more often than not they would complain that the image looked worse or I'd find it right back where it was a week later. Or I'd 'fix' the aspect ratio and they'd complain about the image not being full-screen.

I finally realized that they really did prefer it 'wrong' and that showing them something 'better' didn't make them change their minds - I was assuming that they would feel the same way I did if I just showed them the difference. This is a projection bias that I think is common to most people who do spend the time to learn and appreciate the finer nuances of any particular subject.

Thanks for the explanation. If most of the audience is like what you describe, I wonder why content producers haven't tried to appeal to them more often already? As far as I can tell, most film and primetime TV productions still strive for gourmet image and sound.

On the other hand, inexpensive consumer cameras have infiltrated mainstream productions like never before. For example, today CNN routinely broadcasts content created with webcams, 25 years ago, ABC's idea of the webcam was 16mm -- a format capable of 14 stops of latitude and equivalent 2k resolution. That's the irony, digital keeps making things cheaper and better while content producers keep lowering the bar on acceptable standards. The playing field is shifting in all different directions, HD raises the bar, UGC lowers it. What it comes down to more than ever is can you break through the white noise and come up with the next Pet Rock? Shooting test charts and counting beans will not get you there.

Are you sure its accurate to say that 16mm film stocks and lenses of 25 years ago were capable of the equivalent of 2k resolution and 14stops of latitude?

Dont you think if CNN wouldve run webcam footage 25 years ago if thats what bystanders shot their accounts of breaking news events on?

I've got 16mm footage shot in the 1930's that looks gorgeous. Better than most of the stuff that gets posted here. And these are Home movies. I really don't know the exact resolving power of a 25 y/o lens, but good glass isn't an invention of the 21 century, and it's hardly the point and in fact highlights the problem: obsessing over charts. Further, a lot (not all) of chart testing that gets posted on the internet isn't scientific and is unreliable. Chart tests that get posted are often followed by How-to DVD's or books and seminars or some other self serving product.

Well, you have to factor in that the 7D in its entirety costs about the same as an adapter! And that it has way better low light performance than a video camera with adapter rig.

And, further, that it depends on what adapter you're talking about.

If you want ultimate resolution, an EX1 or HPX300 with a Letus Ultimate is going to give you more resolved detail than a 5D or 7D will. But then you're talking about $12,000 or more -- so at what point does the wallet intrude on the reality?

And then there's the practical aspects of hauling around a rig with an adapter and collimating it and all that, vs. just plopping a 7D on a tripod and getting the shot.

Again, back to the point, this thread was started about actual resolving power. A lower-quality adapter could indeed blur some or even a significant portion of the video camera's resolution. I only have a Letus Ultimate, so that's the only way I've been able to test, and the Ultimate on an HMC40 shows substantially higher resolution than the 7D or GH1.

Whether the end audience prefers that image, is another question.

At that point, we're into Scarlet S35 or FF35 territory (depending on announcements due later today.) That should give low noise, shallow DOF, high resolution, and little or no aliasing.

But at the Canon DvSLR price points, nothing beats them for shallow DOF and low noise. As long as you're shooting stuff that doesn't alias badly or move too quickly, they rule.

Assuming that RED S35/FF35 can handle Canon lenses, owning a Canon DvSLR and renting a Scarlet as needed could be a great solution.

This post reflects my exact purpose for buying the 7D and selling the Redrock M2 Encore. Tonight was my first shoot with the 7D and it performed exactly as I had hoped it would. Setup from location to location was ultra fast and in a pinch I was able to up the ISO and get shots I would have never been able to get with the M2. I had to change one shot of a close-up on a cell phone screen due to unbearable moire, but only because my backup cam wasn't any better in that department either (HVX200).

It certainly depends on the type of show, but the high-contrast, over saturated & sharpened look seems to be much more common across primetime television than it was 10 or 20 years ago. A specific example would be CSI and all it's spin-offs and imitators - which have consistently been some of the highest rated shows over the past decade. For instance, compare CSI:Miami to Miami Vice - which in it's time was considered very saturated (and definitely would have been 'gourmet' compared to it's contemporaries), but now looks almost pallid in comparison.

Well....."Times-a-Changin"...maybe we should all adapt or get left behind.

Ian-T

Excellent examples, thanks. I guess then the only remaining issue is when the amount of in-camera candy is too much or not enough. For example, if the amount of aliasing on the 5D2 is perfect for someone's needs, then they're fine. But if they want less or more, the control isn't there.

Daniel,

Clearly, we'd like zero aliasing and a brick-wall filter with 100% resolution. One could always introduce some out of band stuff by sharpening, if they wanted to go past the limit.

But this is moot. If we want big sensor 1080p for less than $17.5k (RED ONE), we get aliasing. The question isn't whether we want it, or how much we want, but can we tolerate it.

I think the answer is "yes" for most applications short of a big screen feature. If you think about it, this takes care of itself: if you have a project that requires a gourmet look, you probably have a budget that can handle a broadcast cam, RED ONE, or film. If you have a DvSLR budget, you probably don't have to satisfy gourmet-hungry clients.

There are two trends approaching: putting DvSLR guts in a video cam, and improving DvSLR guts in terms of aliasing, jello and bit depth. Frankly, I could care less about the first scenario. I've adapted. But I'd love to have RED ONE-plus quality at a DvSLR price. I give it three years...

Agreed. For me it's a choice between big sensor and aliasing (5D2) or little sensor and no aliasing (3-chip). I can't wait for the future when I wont have to make that choice as often.

Just get one of each! Cover your bases.

You still need to decide which to shoot with - unless you bungee-wrap them together and shoot in stereo. ;)

Absolutely, and I'm not arguing that we all should be filming this way - just that for a lot of content intended for a general (i.e. non-filmmaker or film enthusiast) audience it's not necessarily a big limitation if that's what your camera produces.

It's certainly better to have the option of creating that look in post to the degree you want it, but right now that's not really the choice we have at the price point of these cameras. You choose between absolute resolution, minimal aliasing, better color depth and ergonomics, or shallow DOF, lens flexibility, low light performance and compact size. I wish we didn't have to make this choice, but at the same time I'm glad we do have the choice - which we didn't even have a couple years ago. And I'm pretty sure that in a few more years we'll get it all (or almost all) in a single camera.

I tend to look at the 5D as similar to the vx1000 - it was far from a perfect camera, but it represented a significant turning point in the quality and capabilities that were available - and that videographers expected - at that price point. And even with it's limitations a lot of people did a lot of good work with the vx1000.