1st Hour with the 7D [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

hermmermferm

10-02-2009, 11:20 AM

ISO/Noise tests. 1080/24p, lens cap on. In FCP, native format, maxed the mids, applied same filter to every clip. Large video version is uploading.. Handheld, skewtastic footage to come..

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3974367271_a93c631447.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2448/3974357139_5c68ba45a8.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2461/3975111342_4bd784bb59.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/3975101976_fd3948b533.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2493/3975093594_ae9321103f.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2570/3975085808_6b54f1c1e5.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2605/3974313663_44e0832972.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2635/3974305221_3c3a7394c1.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/3974296195_c888c42194.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2494/3974288047_15ac540f50.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2659/3975043554_31ddf18350.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2468/3974269769_17178325d7.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2644/3975022920_7bd26f70a6.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2564/3975011440_6eb4553704.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3974235497_380dfa68ec.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2508/3974990346_65ea7b6468.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/3974982104_318cf8d15d.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3469/3974972786_10c3e549b1.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3418/3974962262_5cb430458d.jpg

Rakesh Jacob

10-02-2009, 12:02 PM

Dude that is an awesome pic set. I damn near wanna frame that!

MikeWilkinson

10-02-2009, 12:08 PM

Interesting... 160 and 200 are better that 125?
320 is better than 250? 640 better than 500? How is that?

Rakesh Jacob

10-02-2009, 12:13 PM

Interesting... 160 and 200 are better that 125?
320 is better than 250? 640 better than 500? How is that?

I think Kholi had something about the sweet sopts in the ISO range of the 5D, maybe that's at play here as well

Pirata

10-02-2009, 12:22 PM

nice work, looks like native ISO settings from the 5D still apply, 160/320/640/1250 still being the cleanest

Michael Olsen

10-02-2009, 10:35 PM

Things I've learned here:

1) 7D is still looking good.
2) 7D looks very nice anamorphic
3) 7D is just fine as a walk around cam for doc work
4) skew isn't a deal breaker
5) aliasing isn't going to ruin my day
6) They still don't sell boba anywhere near me.

Thank you, and your girlfriend, for taking the time to make that bit of work. And send me some boba.

hermmermferm

10-02-2009, 10:42 PM

Agh, I accidentally deleted that previous post and now I can't log into Vimeo... ugh, I'll try this again tomorrow..

hermmermferm

10-03-2009, 10:30 AM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3529/3977679012_b27520ea07_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2604/3977670446_20d77515ed_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/3977660306_39af5bbdf1_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2548/3977650156_0368e03333_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2487/3977641278_6e86141b77_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3510/3977631832_4a4b262db8_b.jpg

Zak Forsman

10-03-2009, 11:35 AM

brought your accidentally deleted post back for you.

hermmermferm

10-03-2009, 11:48 AM

Thanks Zak! Noises videos up next. Not sure about this next test, wanted to see the noise in the color channels. Probably better off shooting a chart, but don't have one handy at the moment. Lazy Saturday for me today, I'll take test requests, preferably from the couch.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2485/3977866746_846e2e6380_o.png
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2606/3977866284_3de577f8f5_o.png
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2457/3977865752_dcc483e2f4_o.png
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3524/3977865324_ff5418b8fd_o.png
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2606/3977864580_63e11b8cb4_o.png

hermmermferm

10-03-2009, 12:00 PM

Video of the ISO tests, Vimeo compression crippled a couple of seconds:

6880606

sdewitt

10-03-2009, 12:02 PM

I think you missed UPS while you were out though, probably another e-bay lens?

hermmermferm

10-03-2009, 12:37 PM

CMOS rears its ugly head
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3488/3977266197_f8f832d850.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3978105266_4a78a5dbe2_o.png

Barry_Green

10-03-2009, 01:05 PM

Yep, looks like you were shooting at a high shutter speed in a location lit by fluorescent lights. You cannot do that. You *have* to force the shutter speed to 1/60 (USA/NTSC) or 1/50 (PAL/Europe) when using CMOS under fluos.

hermmermferm

10-03-2009, 01:19 PM

Thanks Barry, I was actually testing it in anamorphic, it's kinda cool looking in a sci-fi way..
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2653/3977374389_7940fa08af_o.png

sdewitt

10-03-2009, 01:27 PM

Awesome!

---
---

Thanks Barry, I was actually testing it in anamorphic, it's kinda cool looking in a sci-fi way..

Kholi

10-03-2009, 02:30 PM

Please sticky this thread. Wow. VERY VERY awesome contribution to this forum!!!

I knew the ISO stack was the same. Not only that... I got a test for you, OP.

Can you confirm a suspicion for me in a more scientific fashion? Does 640 ISO properly exposed retain more highlight detail and produce a smoother gradation from mids to highs than lower ISO's in the native range?

Friggin SICK info!!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!

Michael Olsen

10-03-2009, 02:37 PM

Please sticky this thread. Wow. VERY VERY awesome contribution to this forum!!!

I'll second that request. I know this is something many many people will be asking in a week or two. I've already got the ISO progression tattooed on my left wrist, of course!

J Davis

10-03-2009, 03:00 PM

Best footage so far thanks herm !!
I third this request for sticky and move the thread to the main 7D section plz!

hermmermferm

10-03-2009, 06:57 PM

No tripod, no charts, done off the back of a blank DVD, no way to verify any accuracy.. I'll try to get better :)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/3978926140_9ccc9746f2_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2567/3978158771_19fab1a83a_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2454/3978074459_c3b8a5de6c_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3978830716_d01b7d202f_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2494/3978825720_3df6004df6_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2646/3978820638_f1d3da9585_b.jpg

Michael Olsen

10-03-2009, 07:07 PM

Thanks again for the testing!

But, what on earth was that last test? The back of a blank DVD? How so?

hermmermferm

10-03-2009, 07:57 PM

Haha, I'm literally shooting the back of a DVD! I don't have any charts handy so, whatever works.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2569/3979026738_c9fd20c1bf.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/3978270685_a5eab3c881.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3529/3979037392_b57142e51b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2629/3978281105_41f8558e26.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3978286395_9cea5c7e04.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3524/3978291879_22cc136117.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2593/3978297589_939ae24b73.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3979064322_8a4fa37eea.jpg

mhood

10-03-2009, 08:03 PM

So I'm thinking the crux of the biscuit is 160, 320, 640?

J Davis

10-03-2009, 08:18 PM

I'm liking faithful but not sure about the banding in the reds. Hard to tell without seeing a control shot. Keep up the testing bro and once again a big thanks. Great stuff.

hermmermferm

10-03-2009, 08:20 PM

Seems like it mhood.

Here's the video version of that color test:
http://vimeo.com/6887625

Kholi

10-03-2009, 08:28 PM

Can you confirm a suspicion for me in a more scientific fashion? Does 640 ISO properly exposed retain more highlight detail and produce a smoother gradation from mids to highs than lower ISO's in the native range?

Friggin SICK info!!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!

Vote vote vote.

Faithful was the curve/setting I started out using because I noticed it was, well, Faithful to color reproduction. BUT... the noise I noticed and the banding (as J Davis points out) are what pushed me to Neutral.

J Davis

10-03-2009, 08:48 PM

Vote vote vote.

Faithful was the curve/setting I started out using because I noticed it was, well, Faithful to color reproduction. BUT... the noise I noticed and the banding (as J Davis points out) are what pushed me to Neutral.

Hey Kholi, I looked at neutral but the greens were too lime and i considered the trade off.
Green tends to occur all around us, trees etc. Maybe neutral is better for indoors?
or when you want to avoid reds?
Faithful would be better for any natural settings methinks.

hermmermferm

10-03-2009, 11:10 PM

6888628
doesn't load for me? http://vimeo.com/6888628

USLatin

10-04-2009, 01:06 AM

Thanks for the ISO noise tests! And the CD/DVD. Really appreciate you taking the time to post it up!

So 160, 320, 640, and if you have to then 1250. Neutral. Right?

Animaitor

10-04-2009, 07:16 AM

Wow, nice tests! Thanks for taking the time to do this. I have a question though... how come the noise we can see in the first test is not visible in the last one? I know you used some filters to make the noise more visible but I don't see how would be better to use ISO 160 instead of 125 for lower noise from the last test... anyone?

hermmermferm

10-04-2009, 09:08 AM

That last test is heavily Vimeo compressed, I think it's the worst test of the bunch cause it's so hard to tell, especially since 125 is so underexposed. Maybe these rough noise profiles will help:

6400
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3488/3979877321_c17186196a_b.jpg
5000
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2421/3980634972_69d71b83d3_b.jpg
4000
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2570/3979876101_792a098e7c_b.jpg
3200
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3429/3980633798_4cdfcc7e98_b.jpg
2500
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3536/3979874781_05ce412c4c_b.jpg
2000
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2495/3979874183_847ac265b5_b.jpg
1600
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/3979873483_65d64d0eca_b.jpg
1250
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3462/3980631072_02c1a2958f_b.jpg
1000
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2436/3979872259_093ff0af41_b.jpg
800
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2488/3980629696_63902fcf68_b.jpg
640
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3479/3979870941_f9b330686a_b.jpg
500
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2587/3980628446_acf46d9fe1_b.jpg
400
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3495/3980627850_53065e370e_b.jpg
320
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2576/3980627302_be157fbbaf_b.jpg
250
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2467/3980626730_07a858171b_b.jpg
200
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2659/3979867775_f19edf08f5_b.jpg
160
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/3979867175_a8aceb1ea6_b.jpg
125
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2669/3980625062_bd453d52bf_b.jpg
100
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3498/3979866153_46e18da6a6_b.jpg

320 + Close > 160 + Open For better noise? IMHO?

hermmermferm

10-04-2009, 01:22 PM

Anamorphic fun from last night.. Still misaligned.

http://vimeo.com/6895836
http://vimeo.com/6895836

USLatin

10-04-2009, 05:46 PM

So let me see if I get this straight. The very first tests was with the cap on, so exposure was constant, allays the lowest possible. But if we see a picture of some, then wouldn't the lighting need to be modified, so that there was equal exposure? Otherwise the conditions change and noise changes too. Right?

hermmermferm

10-04-2009, 06:46 PM

You have it right Roberto, the first test is probably more accurate than anything in this thread. Everything else wasn't done in controlled conditions, just what I had available. You'll have to wait for Barrys book for something more accurate ;)

hermmermferm

10-04-2009, 08:51 PM

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2492/3982792148_22d5e4e63c_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2426/3982790636_181d20e3b1_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3430/3982788980_bdb8a43300_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2568/3982787336_72cf6d077e_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2633/3982785564_e5253167be_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3438/3982784298_2be60ed6ae_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2477/3982021307_4093bb72dd_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/3982782722_d357048e41_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2589/3982019909_24f5750a0a_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2621/3982781672_fbf2ab756b_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3524/3982780888_834c2b03c4_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3982780470_c992984032_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2484/3982779572_dc2fd9c239_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3484/3982779162_cdd31f444e_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3186/3982016637_4e6ba8d1e6_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3428/3982778374_c75d57efdf_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/3982792820_1f8ebcd603_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3507/3982793162_3bfa167c56_b.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2523/3982029979_cc1a35b0b3_b.jpg

video version: http://vimeo.com/6902474

hermmermferm

10-07-2009, 11:38 AM

First anamorphic tests with the 7D and a Kowa 1.5X

Vimeo link: http://www.vimeo.com/6948410

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2606/3990063229_fea0efcf82_o.jpg

Michael Olsen

10-07-2009, 12:36 PM

Thanks again for taking all the time to run through these tests and post them up here.

P.S. You should see about having prints made and submit to a modern art gallery.

hermmermferm

10-07-2009, 12:57 PM

Thanks Michael!

Sttratos

10-11-2009, 03:09 PM

I'm still undecided between neutral and faithful, but ti seems neutral has less noise.

USLatin

10-11-2009, 03:47 PM

but ti seems neutral has less noise.

sold! :)

visugeek

10-20-2009, 03:03 PM

Hey moderators, can this thread be made sticky? Thanks!

TNC

10-30-2009, 06:59 PM

Hey can anyone summarize the results for us less smart once?

hermmermferm

10-31-2009, 04:19 PM

Kholi

10-31-2009, 04:22 PM

I can tell you what I learned..

160, 320, 640 ISO sweet spots, but I'm not afraid of anything below 100, it's just a different kind of noise.

I like faithful but have recently switched to cine-gamma.. For something different, I actually prefer the 7D monochrome vs a post CC.

IMHO you can get away with 640+ if the light allows it, though you'd probably want to go with a lower ISO anyways if the light allowed it. Haven't used Neat Video to clean up anything yet, but I'm afraid of anything over 640.

What else... ..I blast the brightness on my LCD?

Where's your brightness setting set at for your LCD? Still haven't figured that one out myself. I have it down one notch from the middle, I believe, on all of my cameras.

Also, Cine-Gamma from Marvel Films is what you're referring to? I may have to go ahead and install that one finally.

Also, I still dunno how to get to ISO 50. Can you do that in video mode?

hermmermferm

11-01-2009, 06:43 AM

I forget where the exact brightness setting is in the menu but I know mine is maxed. IMHO, it aides viewing any kind of noise you might not notice with a darker LCD. It's probably a double-edged sword though, considering it'll drain your battery faster. Generally, I like to read through the manual for every camera I buy, I mean every page too (like how to turn the camera on), I always end up learning at least two new tricks (many more depending on the camera).

I haven't figured out ISO 50 video mode, fingers crossed for Tram. Cine-Gamma from Marvel Film seems pretty good so far, definitely like it for the darker locations.