Except that you are completely off base. 5D has been used in several major features, including the upcoming George Clooney film Up in the Air.

Cris Daniels makes a valid point. He would shoot 16mm before he shot this camera. He is not willing to take the tradeoffs required to accept the benefits. And that is the issue, really, can this camera be acceptable to mainstream shooters? To Mr. Daniels it is not. It doesn't fit his existing workflow, and the historical methods of film production. He is not willing to shoot around the 5D flaws, though he is willing to shoot around 16mm flaws.

I see this camera as doing an end around traditional film production. That threatens many, as they have a process they have invested in. The problem with the 5D and 7D cameras, is they give those of us who have never been there the chance to develop a different process free of what the traditions of celluloid film making. That seems to hurt peoples sensibilities at times.

Chris, I've shot 35mm, super16mm, every flavor of HD, SD and DV. Would I choose super16mm over the 5D/7D? Sure I would, everytime. As long as the job both demanded film and I had the right budget, crew and equipment. But this week I'm shooting on the 7D, last week I shot on digi and next week I'll be shooting HD with both a panasonic varicam and a 7D - in each case the camera is my choice for the production based on what we have to achieve and the budget we have to do it with.

Does the 7D have moire? Yes. Can the 7D produce cool looking interviews and shallow depth of field,? Yes. Is the 7D a great little camera? Yes. Is the 7D right for every job? No.

Does the 7D threaten me as veteran of the film and video industry? Now, you've got to be having a laugh. I suggest you spend some time on a movie set, you might be surprised how open people are to new ideas and innovation - I hope that doesn't hurt your sensibilities:)

Liam, I spent a little bit (just a very tiny little bit). My experience in my limited contacts is that there are those that won't budge and try the "new", whatever it might be, and then there are those that are daring and will plow new ground.

In another thread, I was the chastized by people because my DIY gear didn't look professional They want to have equipment that looks acceptable. I indicated that my experience in seeing sets real filming is that film makers are open to anything taped together or otherwise that will get the shot.

And my point about Cris Daniels post does not really differ from yours. Perhaps you didn't catch my drift. He won't go elsewhere if he has the ability to shoot it with 16mm. You say it is the same with you. But I am saying there is a whole cadre of new film makers out there who are going to step around celluloid, and never ever use it. Whether that is good or bad is another issue, but I believe that is what is threatening to those who have invested in celluloid.

Celluloid is going out... whether its this year, next year, or 25 years from now, it is going to be leaving the scene as dynamic range and other celluloid like benefits can be added to the process. These DSLR's are the first chinks in the celluloid fortress for the small time shooter, and forward looking shooters are going to take advantage.

What was the point of this thread again? Oh yeah, another useless debate of this vs that, and nowhere in the original question does in mention digital vs analog.

Debating the virtues of digital and the demise of film is pointless. Film with be with us for the rest of our lives and probably our grandchildren's lives.

Remember after the desktop revolution we were going to be paperless? Funny thing is in the US we consume three times the amount of paper we did a decade ago. Do you think as a society we're consuming less film now or more? I'll give you a hint - that's a trick question.

So instead of arguing the finer points of 5D vs 7D why don't we put our collective genius together and figure out ways to make these cameras work as well as they possibly can. Lets start being more constructive and supportive as a community and stop wasting time debating the future of film.

I purchased a 7D because of a shot we did on a "film" shoot with a 5D. It worked great, but for the most part these cameras have a limited role to play in film production, lets see if we can collectively expand the role.

"So instead of arguing the finer points of 5D vs 7D why don't we put our collective genius together and figure out ways to make these cameras work as well as they possibly can. Lets start being more constructive and supportive as a community......for the most part these cameras have a limited role to play in film production, lets see if we can collectively expand the role."


Spot on Chuck!

You don't know much about Ansel Adams
 

He was the master of the black and white Polariod image! He produced many famous images using Polariod products

Check out and download Phil Blooms film here. The download version will impress you.

Supposedly blew them away on a 40' foot screen. So I now ask....what is everyone huffing and puffing about?

It's really lousy at filming test charts ;)

Ha ha...good one.

Do you even care?

Not the best on tracked motion either....

Long thread
 

First of all I have to say that I have to agree that the 5d looks like it has slightly more dynamic range. Maybe not 1 stop but a little noticeable when shooting in low light. Nevertheless, the 7d has more dynamic range than an ex1, xh a1, and hvx combined lol.


I thought the only one who still owned an xl1! Even a little hv30 or hfs100 can beat the crap out of it. (I have the original xl1 not the s). Is that embarrassing? How does the 7d only have slightly more resolution than an xl1, my hfs100 basically has twice that resolution on a consumer camera.

Anyway at my work during the summer (the company was a small liberal video/photo journalist company) and we were deliberating between an hpx170 and the 5d mark II (it was during the summer so the firmware update already existed). For 3 weeks my colleague was testing the footage between the two and every single time the 5d mark II just looked so much better. He told me "disregarding the shallow dof, the colors and resolution look so much better". He was so determined to explain why the resolution was better that he explained and demonstrated that the real resolution from the hvx/hpx is really 960x720 (because of the sensor resolution and underlying compression).

So it has been proven that the 7d and 5d shoot better video (in some cases) than the hpx/hvx, Why are people complaining?
I think the next generation of dvslr will fix the moire, but i don't think they'll integrate xlr inputs soon or better ergonomics for video.
I don't understand how people can complain with these video slrs. Try using a crappy flip video camera and then you'll see how much you miss that annoying rolling shutter on the slr.

Thank you Chuck for trying to get this back on track, start being constructive, and helping each other move forward.