DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Canon EOS Crop Sensor for HD (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-crop-sensor-hd/)
-   -   "Real" 1080 24p resolution (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-crop-sensor-hd/466555-real-1080-24p-resolution.html)

Ron German October 27th, 2009 06:22 AM

"Real" 1080 24p resolution
 
Hi

I sold my JVC HD 100a and I`m now interested in 7D, mainly for narrative work.

Searching for info, I`ve read some users saying that the 1080 24p is "soft", and watching some downloaded 1280X720 7D stuff from Vimeu, I have the same "soft" impression, even aware of the diferent camera set up and losses from compression each user applied in editing process.

So my question for a Canon 7D owner that have seen its recorded original stuff played in a real 1080p display: is the 7D 1080 24p camera original resolution correct (like Sony EX1)?

Thanks
Ron

David Chapman October 27th, 2009 06:56 AM

is the 7D 1080 24p camera original resolution correct (like Sony EX1)?

1. Are you asking if the original is soft or not? A lot of people are turning the detail setting all the way down, but I don't feel that my footage is overly "soft" or not sharp on things in focus.

2. Are you asking if the 1080p is full-frame and not some horizontal stretch? Yes, it's full 1920x1080 like the EX1.

I sold my HD100ua also. Of course, you can't shoot whip pans or go handheld without some rig (so the pivot point isn't so sharp in your hands).

I shot an 2min interview a year ago with my HD100. The client wasn't pleased with their reading so she wanted to shoot again. It was my first shoot on the 7D. She actually wore the same clothes and it was in the same location with the same lights. The difference is night and day. The 7D (with a fast lens) lets you create some beautiful shots.

Ron German October 27th, 2009 07:15 AM

Thank you James
I`m also going to turn the detail setting down, because I`m looking for a more filmic image. And I know 7D is full 1920x1080 like the EX1.
Maybe my question could be if it mesures like 1920x1080 in a resolution chart, or...if in similar set up (sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc), the "impression" of resolution is similar to a wel known 1920X1080 camera.
Best
Ron

Barry Green October 27th, 2009 11:40 AM

In terms of "real resolution", the 7D (and all DSLRs, such as the GH1, 5D, and K-7) aren't very high. They're better than 480p, but not as high as 720p. They look much sharper than that, but in terms of actual solid resolved detail as viewed on a resolution chart, it's not encouraging. They gain a ton of additional "sharpness" through aliasing, which can look good but can also backfire (moire, stairstepping lines, shimmering, etc). As compared to a modern known video camera, none of the DSLRs can deliver an image as sharp as that from an EX1, HPX300, or even a little HMC40.

Ron German October 27th, 2009 02:21 PM

Thank you Barry.
Do you think this lack in DSLR actual solid resolved detail (actual resolution) could damage a 35mm blow up or a theater digital projection, despite the great increase in depth / volume the image gain because the large sensor?
Best
Ron

Benjamin Eckstein October 27th, 2009 02:41 PM

I am not Barry, but my guess to your question is Yes, it would probably look worse as a 35mm theatrical blow up than a more robust HD video camera.

These cams make lovely images though and many of the shortcomings are only noticed by pixel-peepers and not a normal "audience".

Ron German October 27th, 2009 03:21 PM

Thank you Benjamin.
Ron

Steve Mims October 27th, 2009 04:39 PM

Shot a 50/50 7D/EX1 short two weeks ago
 
I shot a short narrative film two weeks ago that's roughly 50/50 7D and EX1.

I transcoded the H.264 7D files to XDCAM and cut everything in Final Cut.

Chris Hurd loaned me his 7D for the project and in exchange I've promised him an in-depth article about the shoot and the results.

But the short answer, as it relates to this thread, is that the 7D footage looks better than the EX 1 footage even at 800 ASA. I've seen my rough cut projected on a 2K projector on a 16 foot screen and it looks amazing.

I'm prepping to shoot pick-ups next week, but I should have footage, stills and an account of the process available within a few weeks.

Noah Yuan-Vogel October 27th, 2009 04:49 PM

I'm not sure I agree with Barry. I will say that I have an EX1 and just sold my 5dmk2 for a 7d, and the ex1 is the sharpest and least prone to artifacting for sure. It is probably also the best equipped for a sharp blowup for 35mm projection. On the other hand, my old 5dmk2 was sharper than my new 7d, and both are quite sharp when downscaled (with a good scaler) to 720p from their native 1080p. I'd say if you want sharp 1080p, EX1 will just barely give you what you need and a camera that oversamples 1080p is probably the way to go (red, f23,f35,genesis,35mm film, viper, etc). If sharp 720p is what you need, then ex1 or 5dmk2 or 7d downscaled in post from 1080p source to 720p are all quite solid options.

I do not, however have charts to back this up, this is largely based on my experience. Maybe ill put a chart in front of my ex1 and 7d to see for sure.

Mikko Topponen October 27th, 2009 05:35 PM

I don't agree with Barry either. I have the Canon HV20 and it's very good looking and it's sharpness seems to match the 7d pretty well (in cinemode). My older Sony HC1 clearly has less resolution than either.

Barry Green October 27th, 2009 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron German (Post 1438676)
Thank you Barry.
Do you think this lack in DSLR actual solid resolved detail (actual resolution) could damage a 35mm blow up or a theater digital projection, despite the great increase in depth / volume the image gain because the large sensor?

Depends on what you've shot. If you're dealing with largely natural subjects, there's not much in the way of sharp straight lines and repeating patterns of detail to cause moire, so the aliased information would make the image look very sharp and may not show any clearly obvious drawbacks.

But if you're shooting a row of houses with shingled roofs and chain-link fences, with thin power lines running overhead, then the resulting aliasing and potential moire might look pretty nasty on a blowup.

Barry Green October 27th, 2009 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noah Yuan-Vogel (Post 1438746)
I do not, however have charts to back this up, this is largely based on my experience. Maybe ill put a chart in front of my ex1 and 7d to see for sure.

Please do. And prepare to be shocked when you do. Then you might come back to this thread and think differently. In 720p mode a 7D can't even resolve 400 lines, and in 1080 mode it barely ekes out 500. The rest is all aliasing. And the 5D and GH1 aren't any better, they all make their "sharpness" through aliasing.

I used a few charts, mainly my DSC Labs' MegaTrumpets 12 (which is designed to measure resolution up to 4K) and my Chroma Du Monde Billups VF/X+, which shows res lines out to 1000. When you see how the DSLR cameras perform on a chart, you'll see that there are very significant compromises in the way they gain their sharpness, and you'll also see that the actual measurable resolution (sans aliasing) is not very high at all.

Barry Green October 27th, 2009 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikko Topponen (Post 1438766)
I don't agree with Barry either. I have the Canon HV20 and it's very good looking and it's sharpness seems to match the 7d pretty well (in cinemode). My older Sony HC1 clearly has less resolution than either.

A Canon HV20 will have quite a bit higher resolution than a 7D.

There is a difference between resolution and sharpness. Aliasing adds a ton of perceived "sharpness" but it is not resolved detail, it's spurious image contamination that -- in many conditions -- looks "good".

Jonathan E. Shaw October 27th, 2009 08:33 PM

I know that I'm responding to the legendary Barry Green, whose encyclopedic knowledge of video production issues has been very useful to me in the past, but, I do have to say that in the real world experience of these cameras (which I know is highly subjective) the image quality (resolution, color depth, sharpness, etc.) is incomparable. The HV20 looks like consumer HD, nice enough if that's your thing, and the 5D Mark II (sorry, no 7d yet for me) is a world better. Breathtakingly better.

Everyone I've shown footage from the 5d too, even (especially) people with no experience in video production are blown away by the images the 5d captures, even with a cheapo 1.8 50mm on there. I shot something with the HV20 the same week and it was ho hum.

Also, can you explain how resolution (both of which are 1080p) is better one on than the other? You obviously aren't talking about raw lines of resolution, right?

Because in your above post it kind of sounds like Canon is practicing false advertising claiming that the 5d and 7d shoot full 1080p video, if you are saying it resolves only 500 lines.

I mean, when I have stuff from the 5d on my 1080p 46inch lcd it looks incredible. Not so much, particularly color reproduction, with the HV20.

All that to say, if we charted these cameras up, one might have statistically better video resolution, but I'll tell you right now which one "looks" better. And I'd be shocked if 100% of people you showed side by side footage to of each camera didn't agree with me.

I'd be thrilled to show something shot really well on a 5d to a client, not so much on the HV20, even if it were the same project, shot the same way.

Daniel Browning October 27th, 2009 09:27 PM

I'm with Barry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan E. Shaw (Post 1438848)
...I do have to say that in the real world experience of these cameras (which I know is highly subjective) the image quality (resolution, color depth, sharpness, etc.) is incomparable. The HV20 looks like consumer HD, nice enough if that's your thing, and the 5D Mark II (sorry, no 7d yet for me) is a world better. Breathtakingly better.

Have you tried shooting them both at the same DOF and angle of view? I think thin DOF is the one thing people like most about the 5D2. If you take that away, I think the HV20 trounces it soundly:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/1132912-post31.html

The 5D2 has other advantages, though, including higher contrast (with the right lenses), far greater color depth, and more dynamic range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan E. Shaw (Post 1438848)
All that to say, if we charted these cameras up, one might have statistically better video resolution, but I'll tell you right now which one "looks" better. And I'd be shocked if 100% of people you showed side by side footage to of each camera didn't agree with me.

Take a nice, natural, unprocessed raw clip from the RED ONE. Apply normal sharpening to one and ridiculously over-the-top sharpening to the other. Guess which one 100% of people will pick "looks" better? The oversharpened one.

Now apply normal saturation to one version of the raw file, but oversaturate the other raw conversion until the grass is bright neon. People will pick the neon grass every time.

Leave a nice, small amount of noise in one version, providing subtle texture throughout. Apply heavy-handed plastic-like noise reduction to the other. 99% of people pick the plastic.

Convert one to use a full 9 stops of dynamic range with detail in the blacks and whites. In the other version clip the whites and crush the blacks for extremely high contrast. People pick the high contrast image every time.

Convert one to show the maximum possible detail at 1920x1080 with no aliasing artifacts. Make another version that has barely 720x480 worth of resolution, but is riddled with aliasing artifacts. Most viewers will pick the junky aliased image.

Render the audio to use a 40 dB of dynamic range and compare it with one that is compressed to within an inch of its life. Listeners pick the "louder" compressed version.

Camera manufacturers know this well, so they tune their cameras for maximum sharpening, saturation, contrast, etc. The results that come out of most cameras is terrible to me, but it sells cameras. The ultra-strong aliasing of the 5D2 is in the same category as the extreme saturation, NR, sharpening, contrast, etc. adjustments applied to digicams to make them appealing to consumers, except in this case there was nothing Canon could do to prevent it.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:16 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network