I think that Barry said that the HMC-40 approaches 900 lines. The GH1 does 700-750 lines.
Sensor size. Everything else is subjective.
"Crazy stuff"? I think that you're misinterpreting what we're saying. No single "look" is definitively THE "film look," in the sense that there are really many "film looks." I love many different looks. I generally love the distinctly DV looks of Michael Mann's latest movies. I love the even dirtier DV look of David Lynch's Inland Empire. I love the 70mm cinematography of Lawrence of Arabia, which is a serious contender for greatest cinematography ever. I love the VistaVision of several of Hitchcock's movies. I love 8mm film and have tried to duplicate it digitally.
Good for you. We know that the 5D works and works very well for a lot of people. This forum, the corresponding one over at DV Info Net, the 5D-oriented cinema5D forum, and others at DPReview and more are a testament to that. But it doesn't really address the topic of the 5D compared to the 7D. Nothing from your testimonial indicates that the 7D wouldn't work just as well in your (and others') case.
This debate has been done many times, in many places, and will probably never die. The result is always the same. The majority simply can't be talked out of believing that 24 fps is more aesthetically pleasing than any other frame rate for narrative production. So enjoy your 30p, 48p, 60p, or whatever other frame rate that you like. But please let us enjoy our 24p.
Welcome!
The problem with this argument is that most people in the general public don't care about the things that obsess members of DVXuser and other such communities. They really, truly wouldn't even give much thought to 24p and shallow DOF. They are perfectly happy to be entertained by things that are artistically bankrupt. And that's OK. But we do care.
How do you know this? Can you read his mind? On what basis do you claim the authority to speak on his behalf?
No reasonable person would try to argue you out of this opinion. But at the same time, there actually are people here who really, truly do prefer the image from the 7D. People like Kholi and Ian-T (if I'm not mistaken). Several users, such as stephenmick, have tried to match the 5D and 7D and have found the footage to be indistinguishable to their eyes. Some others have attempted the same and disagreed. Some users in the GH1 forum prefer that camera's image to either Canon's. Who's right and who's wrong?
I don't think that anyone can really disagree with you here. After all, there is a really subjective aspect to the "film look." No one is stopping you from deciding for yourself which camera's image looks better to you. But please let us also decide the same for ourselves.
No, it is not nonsense. First, one must define exactly what one means by "film look." Once it is defined, criteria must be specified to allow one to evaluate what is necessary to achieve such a look. We have done that and showed that, in the technical aspects that matter (the emotional, creative, subjective ones aren't included, specifically because they are nebulous), the 7D offers an image that more closely resembles 35mm motion pictures than the 5D does. Again, I don't see how this could be controversial.
Then why not stick with the trusty old DVX100 instead of spending several thousand dollars on a 5D package? It's just as capable of inspiring great, creative work, especially if you leave that "film look craziness" aside.
If "people don't notice these things and often don't have a frame of reference to compare one format to another," then why choose the 5D over the 7D or any other camera, since your audience can't compare the difference in quality anyway?
Several traditional camcorders offer comparable or superior low-light performance, noise and grain "aesthetics," color, and dynamic range. "How a sensor looks with a given lens": Now that's totally subjective.
I just wanted to let you know that you've spent quite a lot of text on arguments that would discourage people from adopting the 5D or any other DSLR over what they already have, such as the EX1, XH-A1, Z1U, DVX100, HVX200, HMC150, and other prosumer "small-chip" camcorders.
It's not an obsession with numbers or dogma. And you want to talk about "people who should really know better"?
Hopefully the artistry. If they're noticing anything else, I did something wrong.
Sounds like you're being presumptuous and, on top of that, just plain wrong. I light by eye, and I think my stuff looks pretty good. I don't calculate camera positions off of a slide rule, so I'm not sure what you're getting at? And, owning a 35mm film camera, as well as a Letus Ultimate adapter, and having worked heavily in film for the last 12 years, but not as much in the last 5, I think I really rather know what I like. I'm used to the framing, the depth, the perspective, and the feel of 35mm film. I have shot hundreds of thousands of feet of it, I've shot commercials for regional and national organizations on it, won an Emmy with it, and am really just rather experienced with and fond of it.
Is this a serious question? 24p vs. not. Game, set, and match. Over and done. No further investigation necessary. That right there is enough to settle the issue, but the fact that the 7D has a film-style field of view and costs $1,000 less are also compelling reasons.
Perhaps you need to spend a little more time reading the forums before making unfounded proclamations? Sensor size is certainly a factor, but frame rate is the far more important factor.
Well, then you and I will completely disagree. I think "film look" means it looks as if it's been shot on film.
Go right ahead. You're free to include whatever you want. Just please don't try to tell me what I think, or try to tell anyone else what I think, especially when you're wrong about it.
In cinema, 70mm is considered extinct. Or have I somehow missed out on a new gold rush of 70mm films being made?
Did anyone say any such thing? All I said was "if you want it to look like the movies, you want a cine-sized sensor running at 24fps. Because that is what the movies are shot on." Or are you somehow trying to contradict that?
Actually, it's obvious. Patently obvious.
We aren't talking about what's "more attractive" or "sharper". We are talking about what looks more like the cinema.
Fortunately for me, the truth doesn't depend on you believing in it. It's true whether any particular individual wants to believe in it or not.
Er... it makes it more film-like... more cinema-like... kind of the whole point...
I see that you're clearly having an argument with someone else, certainly not with me. I didn't say it was "better looking" or "not beautiful" or anything like that. Go shoot on PixelVision, it's a very different look and quite artistic. But it looks nothing like the cinema. Go shoot still photographs, they can have an astonishing richness of texture and depth and sharpness... but they look nothing like the cinema. Go paint -- paintings are a superlative way to experience beauty and presence, art and imagery and emotion all at once. But they are not the cinema.
Was anyone in my post trying to imply otherwise? The 5D certainly has superiority over the 7D, which is why it costs more.
Oh, I agree that there's a lot of misinformation here, yes. A lot of it.
