t2i/7d/5d on the big screen?

hay guys, a you know the DSLR's are getting more and more popular every day, and people are ven useing them as a b camera on red shoots and for television b roll. But i keep running into non-believers who admit that the footage looks fantastic in the view finder and on youtube but they claim that if you blow it up and project it it will look awful compared to a traditional HD camera. This dosn't make much cense to me because we are talking about the same amount of pixels being blown up right? 1080 projected is 1080 projected but i hear skeptics all the time knocking down the DSLR craze. Is this a snobby misconception or is there some truth to this that i don't understand?
 
Last edited:
Okay, the problem isn't in the number of pixels, but the compression scheme used to record them. A DSLR uses 1920x1080 or 1280x720 like other high def cameras, but they are using the H264 MPEG4 codec. This is HIGHLY compressed, which means the quality of each frame is substantially less. This will be particularly notable if you blow it up to a 50 foot screen.

Also, the RED camera uses 4000x2000 pixels, and their RED codec is very mild and not very compressed at all. That is why it is incomparable to a DSLR, at least for big screen presentation.
 
Hey Sonny, remember when we were talking abt the 5D mkii and the House finale? Well, i vaguely recall reading something about the House finale being shown in a few theaters and that it looked pretty good. This was just a week or so after the finale aired.

I cant remember where i read this, know anything abt it?
 

chilipie

Pro Member
indiePRO
-
Philip Bloom has had DSLR footage printed to 35mm and screened at the Lucasfilm ranch, and they seem to have been impressed by it, as Bloom is now shooting 2nd Unit on Lucas's new film Red Tails, using DSLRs. They are obviously still far from ideal, and a whole feature shot on them will not hold up as well as just a few shots, but they're a very realistic choice for a low-budget production.
 
Philip Bloom has had DSLR footage printed to 35mm and screened at the Lucasfilm ranch, and they seem to have been impressed by it, as Bloom is now shooting 2nd Unit on Lucas's new film Red Tails, using DSLRs. They are obviously still far from ideal, and a whole feature shot on them will not hold up as well as just a few shots, but they're a very realistic choice for a low-budget production.

i almost sold my liver and ordered one when i saw Phillip Bloom's lucas ranch footage that was off the chain.
 
Even though I hate the codec, I'm still considering one. Also, there is a mod for the GH-1 that records at amazing bitrates - but it is still a bit wonky from what I understand.

If I thought I could connect a 5D/7D to an AJA box that records ProRes, and do so without retaining the h.264 artifacts I would probably do it in a heart beat.
 
One of my freind made a feature film shot with 5DM2......not a single pixel missed when screened in a theatre on 70mm....

He had a 70mm film print made from DLSR footage?

Again, there are all pixels there, but the codec is highly compressed. It will show in anything with a lot of camera movement. The Rolling shutter issue is also something that affects using it for everything. Walls and straight lines get curvy with horizontal movement using DSLR.

Don't get me wrong, I think the footage looks great. It works for most things, and looks amazing. I just don't think it will be good enough for theatrical presentation.

An HD broadcast on a movie theater screen can look great, but if you put it side by side with 35mm film originated material, or 2k-4k digital footage, DSLR will show it's weaknesses. Like I said, putting the HOUSE M.D. season finale footage side by side with their 35mm footage from previous episodes was the only way I could tell the footage wasn't the same. The DLSR Canon 5DmII footage looked great and ALMOST as good, but it was a little softer and had less detail. Not by much, though. It was very comparable.
 
yah i get what you mean with the codec, i shot my short on a 7d and had a lot of hetic camera movement and flashing lights and snap zooms and scthick like that, the whole piece is filled with artifacts and it all looks very very digital (witch works for my style) and final cut does not lie the files, it cant play them back with out dropping frames, especially at the end and beginning of cuts. but this is a software issue right? perhaps there will be a firmware update or hack to make the video encoding better?
 
Hi guys, This is my first post on this forum so first let me introduce myself first.

I've been working as an CG Artist for animation and composting since 2002-2003 but now concentrating myself more toward direction and film making. I have done lots of short animation films and visual effects during my career but never done live action film or motion film yet. But I am dam mad, crazy and enthusiastic toward direction and film making with my current job too. so for that I bought Nikon D5ooo as I thought this is SLR with HD video shooting feature as I wanted to get my video as film look. But here I did big mistake now realized it after few project.

very first mistake I did that I couldn't find this forum.
second I go for Nikon D5000 not for Ti, 5D or 7D if I would go for DSLR even
third I'm bit middle class guy and D5000 is also more than my budget that is sad part for me.
forth mistake bad tripod I got

I'm now in middle of the film (First I am making one documentary to become handy with camera and film making) (in fact editing, composting and sound editing is not an issue for me I'm much expert with that) but I found few issues with Digital SLR Video

1. Compression that we can see in all footage
2. bit rigid or not smooth motion
3. not 100% comfortable with zooming
4. No proper motion blur
5. I couldn't get much clarity like film or 3CCD HD camera in fact cant compare
6. some time get trouble with focusing

I believe that DSLR/SLR actually built for photography because of that lens elements and some other technical stuffs are appropriate to them not for video shooting. sometimes i feel uncomfortable and Zerk movement in zooming and focusing. in display screen sometime in sunlight or in some positing hard to understand frame or focus and in view finder almost impossible to shoot even D5000 doesn't support shooting without display screen on.
I know Ti,5D and 7D are much better than D5000 in video and may be less problematic than D5000 but as a CG Artist I believe all DSLR shoot only compressed video which can never compare with broadcast camera or film camera at least for now hopefully in future they invent some new format or technique

But all in one I regrets now with D5000 and sad thing is that I spend my all money and now if I will sale it i wont get much back and even I cant go for new pro or semi pro camera.. :( anyways but hope for the best I never disappointed will try again to save some money and try to get new fantastic semi pro or if luck help me than would like to go from pro camera.. so cheer. Please dont laugh on me in fact I need you ppl support to learn direction, cinematography and film making as i cant join any academy those are to expensive i cant even dream to join them.

I'm not master at all like you pro ppl. In fact I have just entered in this film field but sharing my knowledge and experience whatever I have please know and learn me whenever you find me wrong. I have and want to learn lots of things from you pro guys..
 
Last edited:
Personally, I thought the House MD show looked just as good as the previous stuff I've seen...I thought the detail was nice, the color was great, the DOF was solid...all of it...awesome.

The only people that might care about the little differences are DPs and filmmakers. The audience isn't going to care about the differences between a well shot 5D movie or a RED movie...even on the big screen. It's become much more about story and content now'adays, and less about how it looks.
 

chilipie

Pro Member
indiePRO
-
It's become much more about story and content now'adays, and less about how it looks.

I'd respectfully disagree with this, and say that the prevalence of DSLRs has shown the opposite - they're so popular in part because of the look they give to things. Not to say that story and content isn't still important, and it (rightly) is the priority of many filmmakers, but I think at the indie level there is sometimes a disproportionate amount of effort invested in achieving a specific look, rather than making a great film.
 
Personally, I thought the House MD show looked just as good as the previous stuff I've seen...I thought the detail was nice, the color was great, the DOF was solid...all of it...awesome.

The only people that might care about the little differences are DPs and filmmakers. The audience isn't going to care about the differences between a well shot 5D movie or a RED movie...even on the big screen. It's become much more about story and content now'adays, and less about how it looks.

Like I said, it was really, really close in quality, which is astounding because the Panavision 35mm film cameras they use are several hundred thousand dollars without a lens, and the Canon 5D is only $3,000 with a lens or two. To get that close in quality with such an enormous cost difference means that indie filmmakers have a chance now to get close to the 35mm film look without the heavy costs.

It's a good thing.
 

chilipie

Pro Member
indiePRO
-
Like I said, it was really, really close in quality, which is astounding because the Panavision 35mm film cameras they use are several hundred thousand dollars without a lens, and the Canon 5D is only $3,000 with a lens or two. To get that close in quality with such an enormous cost difference means that indie filmmakers have a chance now to get close to the 35mm film look without the heavy costs.

It's a good thing.

Definitely. If they can just find away of getting uncompressed HD out, I can see the RED guys getting very unhappy…
 
and if your watching on a computer screen you cant tell the difference unless you went to film school

Well... if your computer screen is a 1920x1080 42" like mine, you can really easily tell the difference. But even then, it still looks great, just not as good as RED or 35mm stuff scanned at 2K or even at 1080P.

It's the artist, not the brush that counts.
 
It all depends on what sort of look you want your movie to have. Have you ever heard of a PXL-2000? Horrible quality, but they have a film festival for only movies shot on them. Any camera can get the job done. I would say that the T2i is versatile enough to create a whole movie, and as long as the acting is done well, nobody will care much about what it looks like. But please, please, PLEASE use a tripod.
 
Hi guys, This is my first post on this forum so first let me introduce myself first.
.....very first mistake I did that I couldn't find this forum.
second I go for Nikon D5000 not for Ti, 5D or 7D if I would go for DSLR even

Welcome to the forum! I don't have a DSLR, but I've been paying attention to recent videos shot with them. When the Nikon D90 came out, there were a lot of viewer complaints. I don't think it can hold a candle to the Canon. A lot of people were expecting the Canon 5D to also suck, but it seems that Canon has less of a rolling shutter issue and has been successful with shaking the stigma associated with the previous camera, emerging as a serious HD video tool. Heck, I have an HVX200 and I want the Canon! I love what it can do with natural light.

I agree that a near future Canon model could record at a higher resolution, using lower compression. I wouldn't give a second thought to the RED.
 
Top