I've been watching Ken Burns new national park series in the U.S. I guess it won't be seen in the U.K., as technically it is quite a mess. Particularly with poor colors and softness. It's no 'Planet Earth'. About half the video would be dramatically better if it had been shot with a 5D.

This is what I find somewhat misleading about these technical assessments. When it comes down to what is actually aired it's pretty meaningless. For beauty shots I can't imagine an editor looking at well shot 5D footage and wishing it had been shot on a EX3. It's like Jennifer Garner with a pimple compared to Margaret Thatcher.

That's funny - it's exactly the same reaction I had when I saw it. I didn't realize what I was watching as it was on when I walked in the room, and once I realized what it was I thought something was off on my TV. I would be shocked if someone couldn't go out right now with a 5D and get footage that would look better, even after transmission, than his series does.

Funny you should say that. I bought the Planet Earth Blu-ray and was disappointed in the general softness of the picture. Over at AVSFORUM 'Planet Earth' is only ranked at 500th (or lower) on the PQ rankings thread. Link: The New PQ Tier Thread for Blu-Ray - Rankings - AVS Forum and is no-where close to the reference group.

Based on the 5D2 footage I have seen so far, I am absolutely confident that the 5D2 produces better images than seen on 'Planet Earth'.

The broadcast Planet Earth I saw looked good, although I was looking at the superb shots more than the technical quality.

Doesn't what you said here confirm the technical assessment?

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...l-footage.html

Having to shoot with a shallow DOF is pretty limiting and having more detail what you want, especially in the wide shots.

But in Vimeo were looking at video compressed more than broadcast. Turn down camera defaults, expose correctly, use UDMA cards, and don't shoot picket fences.
And we are starting to see broadcast 5DII. I do not expect to be horrified.

edit: We are apparently about to see a Saturday Night Live and a Frontline with 5DII footage. These are both significant network shows. So at least in the US we can see how it looks to the end viewer.

And surprise that is what 99% of the intended audience looks at as well. Sometimes we handicap ourselves so much by thinking that everyone notices or even cares about the minute things we see. I have a high performance motorcycle, I hear all the critics in the mags saying it can't do this or that..... You know what, it is light years ahead of what I would ever be able to comprehend or do, it's not even worth listening to. I can roll right on by pretty much any situation that most on their "Super Bikes" would hit the brakes. I know how to ride and every now and then take a decent picture......

Ansel Adam's used a View camera..... Others went with 35mm......


"Big negatives... creative control... photographers love using view cameras. Unlike a standard 35mm camera, the lens and film plane of a view camera are adjustable. These adjustments can change the point of view, plane of focus and even the shape of the objects being photographed."

I might not have been clear - I also thought Planet Earth looked great, on both broadcast and blu-ray. It's the Ken Burns National Parks documentary that looked surprisingly bad to me, especially when you compare it to other recent docs like Planet Earth. Many of the shots lacked detail and dynamic range - not the archival footage, but stuff that looked as if it was shot specifically for the series.

Has anyone done zone plate testing for aliasing with the 7D, and if so, how does it compare to the 5DMkII?

If it is an issue of software processing of the image from the sensor, perhaps there has been an improvement from the 5DMkII to the 7D.

The saturday night live opener looked ok when the shots were static, but broke up quite a bit when there was fast motion. As did the commercials, and the music performance when they shot through flames, and pretty much anything similar since my local cable company started recompressing the signal to fit more HD channels in less bandwidth last year. In other words, the 5D faired no worse than any other source to my eye.

OK. But, I still maintain that the 5D2 footage is an order of magnitude better than the Planet Earth Blu-ray.

AVSFORM do not rank Planet Earth anywhere near the reference group. I often refer to the AVSFORUM PQ Teir ranknigs before I buy a Blu-Ray. One I collected a few top tier titles I quickly learnt the difference between top notch PQ, and ordinary (eg Planet Earth).

To get back on topic. I suspect the BBC would be happier if the 5D2's footage was also softened like that on Planet Earth.

My understanding is that some the Ken Burns stuff was actually shot 8mm as reported in another thread here, at post 8:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/under-wa...nal-parks.html

My view is that the BBC ought to look across the pond at what primetime networks are doing.

The final episode of the current series of "House", arguably the most popular prime time show in the US at the moment, was famously shot exclusively with the Canon 5D Mark II.

I still think the BBC could accept the camera's footage once some kind of post process was applied to the edited footage to reduce aliasing on deeper DOF shots. To me, it just seems as though the BBC are being overly pompous about technology which is infinitely cheaper that other pro cameras, yet still produces stunning results.

That's not possible. That's what was trying to be got over in the earlier posts.

The problem with aliasing is that unlike most other picture artifacts, it may not look too bad in itself - but it can cause nasty problems with compression in a broadcast chain. Think of it like some inherited conditions (such as colour blindless) - an individual may have the gene, but be totally unaware of it, but able to pass it to a descendent in an active form. In the case of aliasing on motion pictures the real issue is that the aliases move in the opposite direction to the (moving) object creating them - that is very bad news for a compression system, and it just isn't something that can be dealt with in "some kind of post process ". It's not a case of being pompous - if a broadcaster was to make extensive use of such cameras, they'd have to up their average bitrate to maintain quality. The cost of doing that is likely to more than just saying "this camera is not approved".

Some posts ago I said the following - "And don't be misled by what the pictures look like straight from the camera, it's how they will stand up to further processing that is key. A user may think they are not troubled by aliasing - then get a phone call saying "that material you supplied us with yesterday...... yeah, looked good, didn't it......but, the funniest thing, I saw it at home and it looked really bad compared to what that other guy shot on his HDV camera......." " That's where the problem lies. It MAY all work out fine.... but it may go very wrong.

For an example of the sort of quality that the BBC requires check out these screen grabs from some footage shot with the new Canon XF305 which has just been approved by the BBC. The level of detail & lack of moire or aliasing is streets ahead of the 5DII http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-...rive-clip.html

I guess "House" reruns will never show on the BBC.

They won't actually as all the series of House so far have been bought by commercial TV stations. The episodes get first showing on the pay-TV channel Sky One & then re-runs get shown on the Free To Air channel Five.

:-) I'm sure if they wanted something badly enough (from the point of view of content) they'd accept it. Exactly the same as material gets shown from low quality POV and hidden cameras.

But that's a world different from commissioning something specifically. Different because here cameras are being specified as what they *wish* to be used for all the reasons specified before.

As far as the earlier Planet Earth comments, then that (AFAIK) was shot with a mixture of HDCAM and tape Varicam, at a time when they were both state of the art. The Varicam was seen as somewhat soft (with it's 960x720 recording), but it's other features made it realistically the best tool of the time for the job. If the programme was being made now, I'm sure they'd insist on a higher quality technically - probably HPX2700 for anything that needed slo-mo - and as soon as a quality 1920x1080 camera with full varispeed capabilities comes along, that's likely to be the new standard.

But the problem with current DSLRs isn't something as simple as just being a bit soft - it's the compression uncertainty that moving aliasing brings.

My understanding is that the 5D will be used heavily this year in House productions- not as the sole camera for a particular episode, but to instead intercut with the film footage. They appear to be confident to be able to do that. As I recall, this was posted somewhere in a Phil Bloom blog or tweet, but can't recall for sure.

None of the Planet Earth producers have ever told me they thought the Varicam was "soft", who have you been talking to? One of the producers making the cinema release "Earth" from the Planet Earth footage told me that on the big screen the Varicam did struggle a bit though.
The Varicam is still the main camera for all BBC NHU big budget series, in fact "Life", the successor to Planet Earth was shot almost exclusively on tape Varicam, and they are still being used, although there has been a big move towards the 2700.
You're certainly right about when 1920x1080 with 60P or more comes along it'll be the new standard, no doubt about it (as long as it's 2/3" and CCD), but we ain't there yet.

Steve

My wording "somewhat soft" shouldn't be thought of the same as "soft"..........! :-) "Soft" is a relative term!

I would have expected tape Varicam to have been replaced by the 2700 on big budget stuff by now, so 960x720 by 1280x720 and DVCProHD by AVC-Intra.

I'm still not sure what you mean when you talk about Planet Earth and say "Varicam was seen as somewhat soft" - by who?

Steve

David and Steve, let's let go of the "soft" comment. If the person to whom the comment was attributed wants to share his or her thoughts on the subject here, they can do so. Otherwise, it is just a hearsay comment not requiring further banter.

I was referring back to the posts in this thread between 43 and 51. Peter Burke said:
The point of my post was to say that whilst Peter may be right in absolute terms about sharpness, it would be wrong to criticise the BBC. There were very valid reasons for the use of the Varicam, and they were (rightly) accepting it's 960x720 resolution. And before you say it, yes, there is a lot more to PQ than solely resolution..... :-) The 5D2 footage MAY look sharper than a Varicam - but it comes with aliasing, and apart from other considerations, I think a softer, alias free picture is preferable.

My understanding was that they wished to standardise on one camera for all the production as much as possible. In the end, they used a mixture of HDCAM and Varicam, in spite of the cost implications. I understood that was an acceptance that Varicam was most desirable in some situations, but other scenes benefitted from the higher resolution of the HDCAM recording. In other words, they recognised that the Varicam might be considered "somewhat soft" in relation to the HDCAM - that is not the same as saying "the Varicam looks soft".

I remember at the time the overwhelming feeling about the Varicam pictures was that without any science or number crunching they just looked superb.

A massive part of the decision would have been because of the need for slomo - it trumps just about any other consideration in wildlife filming, and I think most viewers would be unaware of just how much it is used and how vital it is. Any shot of a flying bird for instance, anything chasing anything else, but also just using say 40fps to give a more dramatic feel to walking elephants or to take a bit of the shake out of 1000mm lens shots. I think if you counted the shots in Planet Earth or Life for instance you'd find far more offspeed shots than standard sync speed ones.

I just think it's a mistake to talk about the Varicam being soft in any way, I can't remember anyone, viewer or in the industry, seeing any of the blue chip NHU stuff, shot almost exclusively on Varicam, saying "great programme, bit soft though".

Steve

I kindly disagree. When displayed at 1920x1080, the 960x720 resolution is decidedly soft in comparison with just about any 1920x1080 camera, including 1/3" one-chippers. Not only does it lack all of the fine detail that 1080p cameras can capture, but it has lower contrast at many of the overlapping levels of detail (particularly the Nyquist spatial frequency), even without sharpening. To me, that easily qualifies as "soft in any way".

If that's your measure of softness, then even a 320x240 web video is not "soft". Millions of viewers sit through such tiny web videos and leave all sorts of "great programme!" comments without mentioning softness. That doesn't mean it's not soft, it just means viewers don't care (enough) to complain about it.

Content is king. If you're recording a routine science experiment and the scientist accidentally discovers cold fusion and a giant sea monster attacks during a surprise daylight meteor shower at 1000 FPS... it wont matter if it's only 960x720 (0.6 MP). Sure, it is a lot softer than the infomercial shot on 5K, but people are still going to prefer it over the infomercial. At the same time, just because it's good doesn't mean it's not soft.

That's not what I said Daniel. I said that I didn't remember anyone thinking it was soft when looking at the finished programmes or indeed when rushes came into the office. The only comments I've ever heard were about how lovely the images were. I'm a massive sharpness freak and wouldn't use it if it wasn't sharp.
I think there's far too much measuring, looking at numbers and side by side magnified views here. Anyone doing that really is losing track of what we're doing, making the best images for our viewers - they're the only ones that count. With this in mind I'm positive that if you set up a couple of 60" HD screens, one with a Sony EX3 and one with a Varicam and showed it to 100 people, you'd probably have a fair few of them saying they preferred the Varicam image, and I'm sure it wouldn't be a 100% vote for the EX3 and all viewers saying they didn't like the Varicam image because it just wasn't sharp and hi resolution enough.
Could be wrong though, we'll have to try it.

Steve

"I think there's far too much measuring, looking at numbers and side by side magnified views here. Anyone doing that really is losing track of what we're doing, making the best images for our viewers - they're the only ones that count."

This also seems to be the conclusion that at least one BBC producer has come to regarding the 5DII. BBC4 has approved the use of this camera for a recent drama based on the strength of the images rather than a technical assessment of the camera. Here's the link.

HD Magazine - HD Mag - BBC Green Lights Use of VideoDSLRs

You have to be careful, in my humble opinion, to quote the use of a particular pro-sumer camera for professional high end use and conclude that is the end of the story, accepted. House and many of the other productions mentioned have access to very high level equipment and post production processing for QC. Very few people using the 5D MkII today have anything like this resource.

I would put Varicam 720p footage mentioned against any of the current DSLRs for sharpness and resolution. Not only does the 5D MKII/7D footage have the aforementioned aliasing and moire issues it is, from my tests and from what I have seen, soft too (including the very nicely shot still shown earlier on in this thread). The perceptual appearance of sharpness is gained through extreme shallow depth of field, where the out of focus parts accentuate the look of the sharp bits. But from what I have seen when cut together with most pro (and much pro-sumer) HD footage it looks soft in direct comparison.

Alan Roberts is a very respected BBC boffin, whose very technical and objective analysis of cameras for professional TV use is the foundation not only for BBC recommendations but EBU ones too. He does not make the laws he only makes objective recommendations based on reliable and accepted practices.

As has been mentioned it is really immaterial (for broadcasters) the wow factor experienced when watching 5D original footage. What is critical is the way the codec and artifacts might fare through post-production and the compresion/decompression of the broadcast chain. The 5D's weak codec (MP4 with no B pictures) can fair poorly here.

There is a certain deja vu about this discussion which reminds me of '28 Days Later', where people assume the medium has arrived because the big boys are using it. I believe they are using these cameras as more of a creative tool than a de facto production standard. There is no doubt that particularly the Canon DSLRs have swept the imagination and are being used for some major production work. If the production (and crew) and story are good enough then it will obviously be shown on whatever platform. But I personally would really would like to see, with these DSLRs, less beautifully shot montages or landscapes and razor thin focus blades of grass cut to beautiful music and more real stories.

At the end of the day this is what matters creatively and it probably is important not to get too hung up on the measuring but, at the same time, it is very useful and very important for those who work directly with the major broadcasters to know the current objective technical analysis of our production gear - our jobs may depend on it!

When you find somebody who has been carrying out this type of review for years then there are preset standards and criteria that get implemented each test. The use of certain test charts may well reveal or not errors, but the point is that the procedures employed are standardised tests. I for one pay attention to these type of scientific tests based on evidence rather than the amazingly variable ones found all over the internet which are subjective at best, and downright biased at the worst. I've ignored ones obviously produced by the manufacturers themselves to support their list of superlatives.

As we've moved from SD to HD, we don't really have simple standards any longer. Even at the most basic level, when we had tape, in analogue - we worried about noise and the number of lines of resolution. Now we have so many variables, it's much more easy for defects - and let's be honest, this is what we're talking about - to be hidden away under a pile of exceptional specifications. I rather like a technical report - not that I understand every word, that effectively says "we got this far, and had to stop - no point going on".

Type in "professional" "HD" "camcorder" into Google and see how $199 will get you something amazing.

Words mean so little now.

What I still cannot quite get is how to interpret alternative detailing of specifications. Note how few manufacturers actually provide example files of their products so we can download a few and compare in our editors. I find it odd that almost every example of actual footage comes from Mr Bloom, bless him! Why don't the manufacturers show off their quality - not just wave figures about?

Right. And that was the point I was trying to make earlier except to add: Just because we don't have access to high level equipment and PP processing for QC pre-submission, doesn't mean the footage we put together on a 5D2 should be rejected? In the right hands, programs made with this camera could, with some of that additional high-end PP voodoo magic, be broadcast worthy?

And if this recent article (below) is to be believed, the BBC are backtracking a little in their earlier rejection of DSLR footage taking each program on a 'case by case basis'. Apparently DSLRs are in the dock right now and the beeb jury are locked in for the night! (Hopefully with a bottle of whiskey and a Canon 5DM2!!)

HD Magazine - HD Mag - BBC's Green Light for DSLRs Is OnHold

Exciting times.

"Right. And that was the point I was trying to make earlier except to add: Just because we don't have access to high level equipment and PP processing for QC pre-submission, doesn't mean the footage we put together on a 5D2 should be rejected? In the right hands, programs made with this camera could, with some of that additional high-end PP voodoo magic, be broadcast worthy?"

What I meant was full pro crew and rigs with experienced focus pullers, DITs etc. Of course in the right hands, if the content warrants it, it may not be rejected. PP can only do so much with less than optimal footage.

BUT bear in mind I have so far seen the trailer for this BBC feature ("...Coronation Street") and it was awful. Aliasing and softness were dreadful. This is on an SD downconverted signal but Mad Men (shot on 35mm) shown the same way on the same channel was stellar. I'll wait to see the full show before casting final judgement though.

However it seems, at this stage to confirm the concerns about how this footage will stand up through the broadcast chain.