Why the 7D doesn't look so cinematic as the 5D?
 

Hi all,

I hope I'm wrong and someone says "it's just the settings" but I've seen quite a lot of different 7D videos and comparing the image and motion feeling with the 5D it doesn't look the same at all. Most 5D videos have that ultra-clean digital cinema feeling... but they still look totally different from any other prosumer and professional camcorder I've ever seen. The 7D on the other side, even shooting manual 24p, looks closer to video (even more noticeable when shooting using artificial light) and I can't understand why. It's suposed to be the same kind of CMOS just scaled down, the lenses are the same and the hardware and software are just adapted from the 5D.

What do you think?

Perhaps you are noticing the difference in image quality between a full frame and an APS-C sensor.

I think one reason you see better footage from the 5D II is that it's been out for a while and people have been using it in professional situations. The 7D has only been out for what, a month?

I've heard from people who own both that the image quality is nearly identical between the two, with the 7D possibly pulling into the lead because aliasing/moire is less of an issue.

I personally think it depending on lens, framing and editing.
And the biggest factor is "what is your definition of being cinematic?"
Simply shooting with 5D makes things "cinematic" or shooting with 7D makes "video" looks.
I shot a wedding with 17-135mm f3.5 and 28mm f 1.8 lens.
28mm gives a lot more shallow dof, so does it make it more cinematic?
My opinion is "yes, it did". Would shooting with 5D do the same thing?
I haven't shot with 5D yet, but I would say "yes".
There are simply too many people shooting with 7D and post and claim "hey, i shot this with 7D. pretty cinematic, huh?" attitude.
Again, it's purely my personal opinion and hoping to hear other people's thoughts on this.

JJ

Yes, the cmos is in fact smaller and the way you shoot has a lot to do with the cinematic feeling and the lens is also very very important, but besides all that, I'm talking about the actual "motion feeling" of the 7D compared to the 5D. There's something inherently progressive and (I hate using this word) "cinematic" with the 5D footage and no matter how many 7D clips I watch I can't see it.

I don't have either but one difference might be that with the same lenses, the 5D should have more bokeh than the 7D due to the larger imager size of the 5D. Is that what you are seeing?

hmmm, if anything I feel the opposite. The 5D MK2 records at 30fps, and the 7D records at 720/60, 1080p/29.97, or 180p/23.976.

To me 30fps is more "video" like, and 23.976 is more cinematic, or more representative of the kind of look I associate with a film camera in terms of motion blur and such.

I still shoot both cameras, because of the crop factor and I love the 16-35mm on the 5D.

I have been using the 7D for longer lens work, although that is certainly not mandatory. I have been taking advantage of the focal length multiplier. Since the 7D has that 1.6x multiplier, the 180mm L series macro is off the hook, effectively now a 288mm macro which means I can get the same level of magification as the 5D, but I don't have to get as close to the subject as I would with the 5D. For wildlife, this is important.

I've been shooting a ton of video of migratory birds, and then I bring out the heavy artillery. The Canon 500mm F4L prime, stick on a 1.4x series II extender and I am shooting at 1120mm ~f5.6. Dont even breathe near the camera at that focal length, but locked off the video is quite amazing.

So the 5D and 7D are complimentary cameras, I love having both.

One thing I disagree with is this need people have to shoot ultra flat or with some weird curve. I have achieved my best results by turning the sharpening down to 1, and the contrast all the way down. The colors look great, no tonal breaks, no weird flesh tones (you fix them in 8-bit post after you wacked them with a bad camera curve). An accurate white balance and adjusting some simple parameters in the Neutral Picture Style seem to work best for me.

Don't worry... I guess it's just me.

Cris, I know the 5D shoots 30 and the 7D shoots 23,97. That's exactly why I can't understand why to me the 7D looks more like video. And I can say it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the DOF.

Shane Hurlbut, who was shooting the first major feature primarily on the 5D, also feels that the motion cadence of the 7D and 1D is not necessarily as cinematic as the 5D. They have been putting the 5D material through Twixtor for 24p output, which he prefers to the native 24p of the other two cameras. I haven't tested them against each other yet but I have been satisfied with the 7D and 1D footage so far in terms of the motion profile.

It would be good to get all three cameras set up to a very close type of picture and do a legitimate test. I have seen 7D footage and 5D footage that looks great and very cinematic, but that depends on the lighting, compostion, etc. I seriously doubt anybody could watch the same takes from both cameras and say the motion characteristics are different, although with Twixtor doing the 24p for the 5D, there probably is some difference.

The one thing I have noticed is that there is lots of 5D footage out there beautifully lit, and most of the 7D footage I've seen looks like grab shots. There is some really good stuff, but it seems most people are simply grabbing the camera and putting up the first stuff they shoot. That's what I did because I was interested in seeing what problems I might encounter. I've done some commercial work so far, but have not yet done anything with really good lighting as I would for more narrative work, and it'll probably be well after the first of the year before I do that. Personally, I don't think it's too meaningful to say one camera is more "cinematic" than another, unless you're comparing two identical shots, with the same lighting, same lens, same composition and relative focal length, and same level of image tweaking...and that will be impossible to do until the 5D gets 24p, or unless you shoot 30p on both cameras, then do the Twixtor thing to both clips.

Franky I guess that I dont think either the 5D OR 7D are quite cinematic cameras, so I am using them only to get shots I can't get with the Sony EX3, EX1, or Panasonic HPX-170.

Anyone who got the funding to cut a feature on a DSLR, wow....

I carry both the 7D and 5D, and you are right DOF is not an issue with either camera. I have the Pictures styles set to matching parameters and have started processing all the video files with Cineform NeoScene. A lot of people feel like the 5D is too video like at 30fps, I guess this is all subjective in the end anyway. I'll have to try running the 5D video through Twixtor, that might be interesting.

Why not? Plenty of folks have done this on much lesser cams.

I remember I was really impressed to hear "28 Days Later" (the zombie movie not the Sandra Bullock flick) was shot with the XL1. That's mini-DV and fewer lines of resolution than the 7D (barely). Although, the skew would kill a film like that, I still see more "film-like" footage from my 7D than my XL1-s, GY-HD100 and even an EX1 I did testing with. Of course, this experience is all user related.

Much lesser cams? Like what? The 5D is at the bottom of the ladder. The camera is not even close to the Sony EX1 or EX3. Please!! And on a set of a major feature the EX1/EX3 are relegated to B-Roll if anything. Many major studios wont let you cut features on HD at all unless you are a very hard hitter. And even then they are using F35 Sonys and such.

Crank 2 was the last movie I saw that was done with prosumer gear, a horrible movie. But I though it looked quite good having been made with such low end equipment. Then again, they wanted 1/250 shutter speeds, and super wide DOF, so it was hardly cinematic in its look.

I'd shoot super 16 before I did a feature on a 5D. Any DP that would CHOOSE to make a major feature on a 5D is fairly crazy, wait till he gets to pass off the moire and rolling shutter to post. Oh yes, no time code anywhere, so you get to slate everything and line up audio waveforms in post to remarry the outboard sound recorder (dont even tell me he is using on-board 12 bit audio with automatic gain) to the 5D video. We'll see just how much money he "saved" going with the 5D.

Anyway I will repeat that I do like the cameras, but these are completely bare bones video cameras.

If Canon or Sony does introduce their RAW video camera ala RED, both of which are rumored, THAT would be the camera to have for some pretty serious indie cinema work.

Cinematic.... what is it anyway....

I just walked through Best Buy. On a Samsung LED TV, they were playing a Blue Ray version of the first Transformers movie. A theatrical cinema release. It was horrible. The problems was that the image was so sharp, and so good, you could clear delinieate between the real live shots, and the added special effects. It is clear to me that special effects are going to have to catch up with the with the definition. I for one enjoy watch the stuff much more on my 720p Hd monitor.

Chris,

It's possible that that TV had 120Hz or 240Hz processing, which smooths motion and removes the dreamlike 24p feel. It might have also had noise reduction, as well as some black/white crush and mid-stretch. Add some sharpening and the image will not be much like the director saw on the studio monitor.

I've noticed cgi always looks fake on my TV but real in theaters.

It's interesting to see people pointing out that there isn't as good of footage out there from the 7D as from the 5D. The 7D has been out a little over a month and the 5D a year. And to those who think it's insane to shoot a feature on it will see many features shot on it...some will look like crap and some will look good. It's just a tool. The person behind the camera will dictate how good things look not the camera. The 7D can look as cinematic as any camera.

How do you get a decent 20-24mm focal length lens on a 7D. You don't and that is a serious problem. I have the turkey 10-22 EF-S and trust me, it is no Cooke or Zeiss prime....You can't having warping on a feature shoot shot with a wide lens unless it is for effect.

The fact is that some shows are switching back to film. I am a believer that someday this will be like the still camera market (try to find someone that even processes basic E-6 anymore), but Kodak had monster motion picture film business last year, so the migration to digital acquisition is not quite as fast as some would believe.

The jello cam rolling shutter is totally unacceptable, especially on the DSLR's, who could explain to a studio that you cut a $60 million dollar picture on such a piece of equipment. I dont believe for two seconds that any major studio exec would greenlight a 5D or 7D, instead of an ARRI 35mm rig. You are going to pay someone 5-20 million to be in a movie and shoot them on a $2500 camera from Best Buy? Maybe for production stills...

The camera cost is not a major problem in the big boy movie industry, make a CG version of Brad Pitt if you really want to save some money on a film.

While I am in total agreement that it is not necessarily the tools, but the operator, it doesn't always jive. Citizen Kane could not have been made on some current HD $1000 camcorder from Best Buy.

Ansel Adams got those amazing negs using large format equipment, not a polaroid or an APS camera. So in the right hands, the right tools do make a difference. In the wrong hands, well, nothing will override the rule "garbage in/garbage out".

Near giving up on the 7D and the 18-135 kit lens because of the inferior image quality, I discovered the Micro Adjustment function on the camera. The image I'm shooting today is much cleaner than what I shot yesterday with this new setting. My kit lens is now focusing properly after a minus 5 (-5) setting was registered for my kit lens. check page 211 of the manual and also check out:
AF microadjustment for the 1Ds mark III, 1D Mk3, 5D Mk2, 7D

It's a bit of experimentation which is well worth the effort to match your lens to your 7D

Given that features have been shoot using a mobile phone, I expect there will be. Although above a certain budget, (or unless there are story telling reasons) there are digital cameras out there which can do a better job. Which isn't to say that you can't use the 7D or 5D in scenes which play to their strengths eg low light levels.

Currently you can rent a RED One for about the same price as a Digibeta and I expect the S35 Scarlet (when it gets out) will be even cheaper. The camera tends to be one of the cheaper items on a feature film budget anyway.

We all know that cinematic quality of footage depend a lot on know-how (sometimes more than the equipment). My theory is that many clips from (the more expensive) 5D mk II where shot by people that are more experienced than people shooting with (the cheaper) 7D.

That said: There are a lot of good shots from the 5D mkII that has been out there for a while. Meaning what? At that time the 5D mkII was even more expensive and would appeal to photographers/filmmakers with some more experience.

Wrong or right? Who knows - but seems like a reasonable theory to me :)

This is great if you are experienced with large chip shooting. But if you are not, there is nothing like living with a large chip camera and picking it up daily to develop and hone your skills with that format. The benefit of the 5D and 7D is that you can get that "film" training relatively cheaply. I say go for it if that is where you want to be.

Chris hit the nail on the head. The 7D and 5D2 both provide experience with large chip shooting for cheap. The images look great to most people, despite any technical flaws.

35mm forces users to learn about lenses. The big sensor forces users to learn focus. The manual mode forces users to learn about exposure. Rolling shutter forces users to employ stability. Aliasing forces users to consider the content in the frame.

Learn to shoot well on the 5D2/7D, and you'll have developed the general skills to shoot well on most anything electronic. Big film cameras? Well, there's always more to learn...

…and audio.
 

I'd add this to what Jon said:

Using these cameras, with their hobbled audio features, also makes one pay more attention to sound and how it's captured than they otherwise might.

I don't think you'll see anything like a 5D on a major film anytime. I don't think that was the point being made. I love my EX as a camera to own and just got a 7D to sit along side - or travel cheaper with a lighter gear kit. I crew/gear up when a production can afford it immediately though.

If someone gets a little money and shoots with a DSLR in their kit right now then that can be a really smart thing I think. On a micro budget, it can reduce lighting needs and amount of crew (including over an EX1/3 + 35mm adapter). Those are big cost savings when you dont have much. That then can be money put into other areas of the production where needed. I agree these cameras have a ton of issues but they can allow someone to save a lot when they have very little to work with. Camera and format selection is one of the lesser worries in getting an indy film sold and distributed.

Jon, Chris Barcellos and Stephen make dead on points about using them.

Jeremy,

You're spot on about nobody making a major feature on a DvSLR. If I get enough money for a big feature, I'll make room for a better camera - purchased or otherwise.

On the other hand, if I were making a no-budget feature spread out over weeks upon weeks of people donating their time, I'd not hesitate to use the 5D2. It might not be technically ideal, but it still pleases most viewers when used well.

And while it might not be a big feature camera, it's been used on Saturday Night Live and on TV commercials with six figure budgets. On one ad that I'm aware of, they used to rent $70,000 cams, and the producer was thrilled with the 5D results and plans to use the camera again.

It's easy to see the technical faults, but we shouldn't let the imperfections make us forget what the camera is capable of producing.

One of my favorite examples of how these cameras can mix in right now is the 30 Seconds to Mars video
YouTube - 30 Seconds to Mars-Kings and Queens Music Video

They shot RED and Phantom in parts but mixed in the use of 6 or 7 7Ds during the bike scenes which otherwise wouldn't really have been possible without hauling 18ks up into the sky.

Shane Hurlbut ASC has been working with the 5D for the past eight months or so on a feature about Navy Seals. It's not a "major" feature as defined by a studio film that will be guaranteed wide release, but it's far beyond a low-budget feature in scope. Shane originally used the 5D for action sequences where the size of the camera allowed for unusual configurations and helmet-cam POV's but gradually began using it for the traditional storytelling aspects as well instead of 35mm, as he had been at the beginning of the shoot. I've seen a number of clips from the film as well as having helped shoot some of it and it is the real deal.

Just because the 7d is inexpensive, compared to the $3000 or plus group of cameras, shouldn't take away the fact that in the right hands it can produce some amazing images.. I believe If Canon were to add all the bells and chimes to these DSLRs, like on their video cams, the cost would probably be right up there at 3 or 4 grand.. and who's to say someone can't get a feature film in the theaters shot with a 7 or the 5??.. 28 Days Later was shot using a couple of Canon XL1s's, not even HD, and did well(theres more i just can't think of them right now..lol).. Content is king!! A good story, a lil hype and people won't care what it was shot on. Many major feature films shot with the standard gear have flopped. Not because it wasn't cinematically pleasing, its cuz the movie sucked! So carry on people, let the creative juices flow regardless what cam you decide to use..

OP:
wWw.TheCostMovie.com

The thing about aliasing - and rolling shutter, for that matter - is that it's only a problem on some scenes. In fact, one could say the same thing about compression. It generally works great. But sometimes it gets bit starved and the image falls apart. That doesn't mean that we should never, ever use compression.

So, if you want a camera that looks great no matter what you throw at it, skip the current DvSLRs. If you have enough creative control to make a DvSLR sing - or can tolerate occasional imperfections, then go for it. :)

For me, the aliasing is real, but it simply hasn't been a problem. Frankly, rolling shutter has been more limiting than aliasing for me.

The issue of aliasing has be covered ad nauseam. Any DP that does NOT know of this issue at this point fails to qualify as "competent DP".

Hi Cris,
I am wanting to buy the 5D or 7D for wildlife too. Would it be possible to see some of your work with both camera's, different lenses etc?
I would be very greatful.
Thanks,
Rob

Why would it change a -competent- DP's thinking? Knowing the limitations of the tools you use would be a part of being competent.

First because you are barely shooting HD with the camera, it would be a complete lie to tell a client they are getting true 1080p footage since the camera has such limited resolving power, proven to be around 600-625 lines, the rest is fake.

Knowing the limitations if half the battle, very very true. But you cant possibly predict every situation where the aliasing and moire will rear its ugly head. I've had it show up in such a variety of shots from wildlife to indoor interviews.

And how could you tell a director (who has the blocking and moves predetermined) that we can't shoot "in that direction", or "with that prop" because the camera will generate artifacts that a true video camera would not.

I will still shoot with these cameras, but nothing that I can't afford to reshoot. Most DP's do not have that luxury to fall back on. Thats all I'm saying.

Rob, I would be happy to post some footage. I dont have a flickr or vimeo account, and I can't let people on my FTP (except clients of course!) . I'm not sure what the best way is to put up full res files....

Chris, I'm still not sure I'm getting your argument. Are you saying do not touch these cameras? Me being a director more than a shooter - if I don't consult my DP and producer throughout prepro and understanding how something might have to flip up if needed on a shoot and demand shots have to happen a certain way is pretty ludicrous. The point is, if someone is shooting with this camera, chances are its for effect, price, or placement. It works in certain situations - and I dont think anyone is arguing on this thread that its hands down an a-camera.

We shot this week on 2 smaller budget projects where we had the EX1 with Letus as the #1 and the 7D as the #2. The footage matches very well and where we needed b-roll where lighting wasn't an option, the 7D was a great friend where the EX/Letus combo couldn't work. Yesterday I shot with both the 7D and 5D on a shoot and again used it for its advantages, extremely shallow DOF and very little lighting needed.

Next week I'll use it on a shoot where there isn't an extra $1000 for baggage fees to fly a larger camera/lighting setup. These things are so cheap and small too, they can be places in spots where you would never think of placing something else.

They definitely have a ton of issues - yes - least of which IMO is the crappy codec and post workflow but can deliver an effect that smaller productions have not been able to take advantage of until now. It's a nice little tool until next summer when the S35 Scarlet gets here hopefully :)

BTW - another great example of this camera working great in a particular situation (RED and 5D)

I think you have to remember that few if any HD cameras are "true 1080p" if this is your criterion. Even the EX1 is not resolving at 1920 by 1080 once you take into account the limits of the lens and the whole image acquisition chain. Panasonic's venerable HVX200, for example - which is approved by the BBC and other high end producers as fit for HD broadcast, has tested at about 500 or so lines if my memory serves me correctly. Many prosumer HDV cameras have resolutions around 600 to 650 (my HC-7 and HV20 come to mind). Canon's XH-A1 is about 800 and I think the EX1 is around 900. I think it is equally misleading to say the 5D II is not capable of true 1080p. Instead I think it is more appropriate to be aware of and honest about (if that's appropriate) its resolution limitations and how it compares with other HD cameras.

Resolution isn't everything, and I say that as a true pixel peeper.

Pat

It takes 2 minutes to make a vimeo account ;)