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:
You should be able to get a nifty fifty for $100 or so. Seems like a bit of a waste of the camera's abilities if you're just using the stock lens…

Mmm. That is a valid point. Except, to get this particular (ultra-low-budget) feature in the can, we'll be following the KISS method, through-and-through.

In the vast majority of the shots, we'll be going for as wide a DOF as possible. And nothing will be shot in low-light.

WHAT?! Why on Earth would I buy this camera, then?

Well, it was actually my least-expensive option for gathering (relatively-speaking) quality HD footage. Any 3CCD prosumer video camera is considerably more expensive. So, I get your point, and it's perfectly valid. But in this case, I happen to like the simplicity of the stock lens.
 

chilipie

Pro Member
indiePRO
-
Mmm. That is a valid point. Except, to get this particular (ultra-low-budget) feature in the can, we'll be following the KISS method, through-and-through.

In the vast majority of the shots, we'll be going for as wide a DOF as possible. And nothing will be shot in low-light.

WHAT?! Why on Earth would I buy this camera, then?

Well, it was actually my least-expensive option for gathering (relatively-speaking) quality HD footage. Any 3CCD prosumer video camera is considerably more expensive. So, I get your point, and it's perfectly valid. But in this case, I happen to like the simplicity of the stock lens.

If you've thought it all through, then fair enough :) It's still a damn good camera for the money. Make sure to watch out for moiré patterns in the background when shooting wide shots with deep focus!
 
Scoopicman First thank you so much for your reply..

I agree wht you said. and hope too for better and uncompressed video quality from canon and even Nikon too in future..

but I want to make some short film. I'm on the beginning stage on story concept. but i need some tips suggestion and help to shoot that with my Nikon D5000 as I cant change that (no money :( )

the main and real issue with this is compressed quality and if less light it gives so much grain n noise which is impossible to remove in post. also panning gives some flicker.

Can you pls give me some tips and trick to shoot with this camera..

My story is an adventure story like moving through forest, ocean, river etc..usually I'll use day light i don't have any lighting budget so need to shoot in natural light source. will have some night shot but will convert day to night in post as i m much expert in visual effects and post works..

I know this is not the thread to post this question here but as I got your reply I just post here..

Pls help me I need lots of help from you all expert guys.
 
Pish posh. :)

I challenge anyone (no matter your monitor rez and size) to tell the difference between a highly competent DP shooing a test of the same scene on T2i, 5D, 7D, RED, and an EX2.

I bet you dollars to donuts that you wouldn't be able to call out the RED in every case.

On a computer screen, no way. In the theater, yes.

Maybe an extremely skilled DP would be able to get a few correct guesses...but the majority of audience members would have no idea the quality difference, nor would it matter at this point.

Cha' know what I men?
 
Last edited:
I want to make some short film...the main and real issue with this is compressed quality and if less light it gives so much grain n noise which is impossible to remove in post. also panning gives some flicker... i don't have any lighting budget so need to shoot in natural light source. will have some night shot but will convert day to night in post as i m much expert in visual effects and post works..


For forest shots, your brightest light is when the sun is high. Where I live, that would be around 10am - 2pm. Try to fill in dark subjects with a reflector. Short lenses and lower shutter speeds, like 1/24 will give you more light, so check your settings. Try not to use quick pan movements; keep them smooth and slow.
 
For forest shots, your brightest light is when the sun is high. Where I live, that would be around 10am - 2pm. Try to fill in dark subjects with a reflector. Short lenses and lower shutter speeds, like 1/24 will give you more light, so check your settings. Try not to use quick pan movements; keep them smooth and slow.

Scoopicman again really thanks for your reply.. its really precious for me. each and every word what you said. I will follow your instruction and hoping more and continuous help from you thought the film making process if you can do that will really very precious for me.
 
Maybe an extremely skilled DP would be able to get a few correct guesses...but the majority of audience members would have no idea the quality difference, nor would it matter at this point.

Cha' know what I men?

I believe that M1chea1 is correct on this one, unless you actually show the higher resolution most will be perfectly happy with the results. Its similar to buying a LCD/Plasma TV, unless the TV is physically bigger or 720p vs 1080p most will not notice the difference unless they are side-by-side, and even then the settings in the store will affect them more than the actual visual quality of the screen (in stores the more expensive the TV the "better" settings the store sets on it).

As for the compression, I think the next generation of offerings will look even better, and yes if Nikon (please Nikon!) or Canon go 2K or 4K and solve the time issue with different file formatting of their cards, I think that may be the end of RED in terms of market potential. Which is why I'm shooting on my Nikon D90 waiting to see what N/C/R are going to do next before I take the leap to the Full Frame Pro camera I want to buy.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the hacked GH1 not suffer on the big screen?

Why would it suffer? (Or was that double negative on purpose? ;)) Sure, on the surface there's fewer pixels, but there's more to image quality than pixel count. Besides, once you start doing the math for the compression (again, line skipping, can't emphasize this enough) you're loosing a large amount of the vertical resolution on the Canon cameras anyway.

The GH-1 isn't line skipped, so aliasing is going to be much less of a problem projected than h.264 cameras. Also, the 4/3 format sensor isn't that much smaller than a standard super-35mm frame. Frankly, you're more likely to be in focus where you think you are on a GH-1 on a 50' screen than on a 7D or 5D (owing to the characteristics of the format). I can't count how many times I've seen footage that when played on my monitor at full screen appears completely out of focus, or with focus in weird places. Projected the problem would be magnified, literally. This is the biggest problem out there for 5D types. Without someone on focus who knows the numbers and can pull by them, one can be tricked into thinking the image is sharp (by little monitors) when it really isn't.

I mean really, if you consider a t2i acceptable for projection, then I really don't see any logical objection to a GH-1. Well, aside from the fact that practically speaking one is working with a hacked camera and that in itself can cause problems in a production environment. Pushing the bitrate limit has been shown to crash it out during takes. There are other assorted problems as well.

The great thing about the GH-1 is that it can take PL mount lenses with the use of a no tools adapter. In order to do the same for a 7/5D you have to send it in for very expensive modification and can't easily go back. This is one reason I don't see myself going to an FF35 sensor should something in the HDSLR market start to make sense for me. I'd rather have the ability to use ultra primes or master primes than have more pixels. OTOH, larger sensors, when not focused on raw pixel count, can use larger photosites, which is good for many things.

Essentially, I'm waiting to see where this goes technology wise. I still see motion problems with the rolling shutter that I just don't find appealing. Even on the simplest of actions like a turning head, or shaking hands, or just walking down a street. I also think the artifacts caused by line skipping are pretty ugly as well. These things won't always be a problem, depending on where the tech goes.
 
How does the 5D footage play out in terms of editing in post?
Like when you try to add CG and other nifty explosions is the footage too compressed
to make tracking and other things a complication?
Also what about green screening?
 
It looks like this (sort of):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxJXSflgPLI

Press "mute" if you don't feel like hearing a random conversation between myself and my actors.

Anyway, about the footage. I'm going to digress for a moment, but my side-story does have a point.

I know dudes who are REALLY into audio. They like to call themselves audiophiles. These dudes can't stand CD audio. To the layperson, digital audio is the best, right? Not according to these dudes. The big difference between analogue (old-school tapes, etc) and digital is that if you listen to a song recorded and played analogue, you are hearing three minutes of continuous sound. Digital isn't continuous. What you are actually hearing, with digital, is a really large number of really brief audio samples, played right after each other. Laypeople like you and I cannot tell the difference. To these audiophiles, the difference is obvious.

Anyway, I think someone like sonnyboo is the video equivalent of an audiophile (I hope you don't mind me using you as an example -- it's because your experience and expertise are clear to see). I think the average person just does not see what these REALLY experienced people are seeing.

I saw some of my footage blown up on the big screen. I thought it looked about as crisp as most any other movie. And here's the kicker:

The footage was full-HD. The projection was SD.

In my opinion, we need not fret. Full HD, from any source, will look good on the big screen. But hey, I'm the non-expert.
 
Hello to all,
I've been shooting HD Video with the Canon 7D for more than a year now, I've been doing corporate movies for different clients and I also do vfx with Autodesk Products. Honnestly, I wasn't aware that the 7D was using very high compression codec ( H.264 ), until I read this thread. I am right now looking at the best footage I've filmed with my 7D in 1080 24p, I have my nose 2 inches from the screen, and yes, I think I can see some compression. I'm not being sarcastic, I just did not notice. I knew I was not watching a Spielberg movie, but my clients and i were very satisfied (and they were very impressed) by the quality of the 1080p image. On a big screen, I have no idea what it will look like, and I'm quite nervous about it because we will be making a indie movie for a competition, and it looks like we'll be shooting with the 7D.

How does the 5D footage play out in terms of editing in post?
Like when you try to add CG and other nifty explosions is the footage too compressed
to make tracking and other things a complication?
Also what about green screening?

I have a very pleasing (but limited I must add) experience with merging 3D footage and VFX with the footage coming out of the 7D in 1080p. If you use the hdri techniques to light and mix properly your 3D objects, and you regrain your sequence properly, you can have very high-quality vfx mixed with a 7D. Again, we're not talking about the Clash of the Titans (the beast (the kracken?) at the end had over 2000 textures on it, so, no, we're not on the same payroll).

About the tracking (and vfx in general), whatever camera you will be using, you should practice how to do it properly. Because the DSLR are made to behave like a manual reflex, you must know what settings on your camera will help for a better tracking. The most important for tracking I think is just to make sure you shoot with a fast shutter rate (1/80 and way up), so if your camera moves fast, your trackers will be able to follow the references despite the motion blur and not too much supervised (repositionning) tracking. Slow shutters can make tracking a nightmare, sometimes I wake up screaming in the cold night.

My last point about the compression of the h.264 is that it might be unnoticeable when you watch your footage in hd, but it may cause headaches when it comes to recompressing the footage. Most of my clients ask for dvds, and I found that recompressing my hd footage in lower mpeg bitrates caused a very fast degradation of the quality, and that I had to be very careful when compressing my video to lower qualities. Maybe it is because of the compression of h.264 that sort of "appears" quickly in that process.

I've never done green screening with it yet but I'm sure it's very easy and that the result will look good. The h.264 won't be a problem if you shot with a good lens/low iso/kind of fast shutter, stick with high bitrates and quality, and if the vfx is made by a good artist. All that said, I have never seen my footage on a big screen.
 
A lot of people are using 7D's in 48hr film competitions...and these are always projected on the big screen. To be quite honest, the compression and artifacting are both minimal, and would rarely be noticed by an audience member...they simply don't notice or care.

As far as someone 'in the know', they may notice, but if the film is well made in all aspects, a little compression and artifacting on the big screen ain't gonna mean squat.

Yes, we all strive for blue ray projection quality beauty...but it's not at all needed to produce beautiful images both on the small screen or big screen.

I think what makes it extremely worth while is the bang for the buck...that is what makes it such a viable option. A beautiful cinematic look for a tiny fraction of the cost of other prosumer cameras (or pro film cameras).
 
Last edited:
Top