5D/7D comparison

[ROCKMORE]

If you listen to the tests done by Jon Fairhurst with the Beachtek as I related before you will find that the Beachtek always has a bit of noise in the high end, with or without ML, etc. which is why I consider it useless. This whole methodology is not as efficient as the other solutions. However, I think if you are going to go down that road, why pay +$300 for it? If you need XLR input's buy a good pre-amp like the Juicedlink (It's a lot cheaper) and make your own pilot tone. At least when ML rolls around for the 7D you will have a coherent piece of equipment. Or buy an H4N (It sounds great and very practical) and get Pluraleyes. As to more specifics, you will have to ask the original poster for it.

The Juicedlink looks very useful to hook in my XLR audio gear. Thanks

 

[yoclay]

Then why didn't you go with the GH1?

No Thanks. Why don't you get one?

What seems quite clear to me is that motion pictures are not your background.

Looking at your posts, it sure appears you have spent a lot of time trying to convince us that the 7D is a better camera and that I obviously know nothing about cinema.

Sorry, I'm not interested in a flame war.

 

[Ian-T]

I mean, do you ever hear "I think that shot has more blurry background than the other dude's shot", from a viewer. Heh, I've been shooting for 25 years, and I don't really notice or care if the shot is more, or less DOF. I DO care if I'm watching a compelling story. That goes for prime TV or screen.

JohnnyD

But the problem is that when it's too shallow....it's friggin distracting. I don't care how good your story is....cause if something takes me away from it it's often difficult to try and get back into it. It's like breaking that 180 rule...it just throws you off. One does not have to be a professional to feel that something is wrong. These are the points some of you are not bringing up.

 

[ydgmdlu]

No Thanks. Why don't you get one?

I have one already, thanks. I wasn't saying that you should get one; I was teasing a little bit based on your statement that you chose the 5D because of the difference in aliasing.

Looking at your posts, it sure appears you have spent a lot of time trying to convince us that the 7D is a better camera and that I obviously know nothing about cinema.

Where did I do that? Nothing that I've said tries to sell the 7D as the better camera. You were spreading misinformation, which I had to correct because you positioned yourself as an authority on how movies are shot. You were the one pushing the 5D as the "obviously better" camera. I'm completely neutral on the matter. You might know more about cinema than I do (I never said that you "know nothing"), but you haven't demonstrated expertise on the technical aspects of 35mm cinematography. Why so upset?

Sorry, I'm not interested in a flame war.

Flame war? This sounds like a red herring. Every post in this thread so far, including yours and mine, has been reasonably civil and level-headed. I'm not trying to incite anything. I'm just presenting the simple facts. I noticed that you haven't attempted any rebuttals of my points. So why the talk of a flame war? I see no reason why we couldn't continue a civil discussion like gentlemen.

What I've been saying in this thread is not a mere opinion. It's logic, rationality. If you're trying to achieve a "film look" as closely as possible, then why wouldn't you try to approximate the technical aspects of 35mm motion pictures as best as you could? My points about the sensor size and focal lengths and aperture are exactly the same as the old argument for 24p. It's not opinion; it's fact. Motion picture film is shot at 24 fps and 1/48th second shutter speed, so your video should be shot at 24 fps and 1/48th, or something close like 1/50th. Academy 35mm (the most common cinema format) is 21.95mm wide, so you should use a camera with a sensor (like Canon APS-C: 22.2mm) close to that. Movies are most commonly shot at 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm, so use those focal lengths. Cinematographers also mostly commonly use apertures between f/2.8 and f/5.6, so stick to that range and don't worry so much about faster lenses. Now, if you're not trying to emulate 35mm motion pictures as closely as possible, then none of that matters.

This thread is about the 5D compared to the 7D. It doesn't have to do with which camera is better. Neither camera is "better." Each one is technically better in some ways but not in others, and each one is better suited to different applications. The objective truth is that the 7D is better for approximating 35mm motion pictures, because of the native frame rate available and the sensor size. That does not mean that it's a better camera than the 5D. It does not mean that it produces a better image. Why is that so hard to understand and accept?

I own three cameras, as my signature indicates, because I find them useful for different applications. If I could afford the 5D also, then I would have one. I used to have one before I got the 7D, but I only sold it because I couldn't afford to keep it.

 

[ROCKMORE]

[quote=ydgmdlu;
Motion picture film is shot at 24 fps and 1/48th second shutter speed, so your video should be shot at 24 fps and 1/48th, or something close like 1/50th. Academy 35mm (the most common cinema format) is 21.95mm wide, so you should use a camera with a sensor (like Canon APS-C: 22.2mm) close to that. Movies are most commonly shot at 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm, so use those focal lengths. Cinematographers also mostly commonly use apertures between f/2.8 and f/5.6, so stick to that range and don't worry so much about faster lenses. Now, if you're not trying to emulate 35mm motion pictures as closely as possible, then none of that matters.

I agree. The APS-C sensor is this the closest to full academy 35mm and will give you reduced DOF to soften the picture to appear more film like. For years in 35mm film we've been trying to stop down as much as we can to pull more into focus. Between 2.8 and 5.6 is where you end up a lot of the time specially when you decide to shoot a few takes over cranked and have to bring in the 10k solar spot to get anything in focus.
It's a love fest for "Zero" DOF now, but it's just another look to tell your story. I know it's a new thing for video because until a year ago every sensor was 11mm corner to corner or smaller, but why are so many people suddenly amazed with it?
PS Hope I didn't piss anybody off with my statement.

 

[yoclay]

For all those who may be interested:

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/s4i.html

Cooke S4/i (T 2.0): 12, 14 , 16, 18, 21

http://www.zeiss.com/c125756900453232/Contents-Frame/8414c61e148a5ee9c125756f003d15a9

Zeiss Master Prime (T 1.3): 14, 16, 18, 21

Reminder: a 35mm lens on a FF sensor is roughly equivalent to a 21mm lens in the cinema world.
These wide angle lenses wouldn't be produced unless there was a need and a demand for them.

And this from the Zeiss page (a somewhat credible source we might say):

"A widest stop of T1.3 allows shooting in low or available light for more natural-looking shots and a reduction of the lighting budget. In addition, a wide open stop creates the cinematic look of an extremely shallow depth of field."

http://www.zeiss.com/c125756900453232/Contents-Frame/8414c61e148a5ee9c125756f003d15a9


PS> T Stops:
http://www.answers.com/topic/f-number
"Since all lenses absorb some portion of the light passing through them (particularly zoom lenses containing many elements), T-stops are sometimes used instead of f-stops for exposure purposes, especially for motion picture camera lenses...the T-number of any given aperture on a lens will always be greater than the f-number."

This means that T 1.3 will yield an even wider f stop, perhaps f1.0 for example...

So to restate what I have already said (as well as Barry Green), when it comes to wide angles and/or available light this is where it all falls apart for the 7D compared to it's big brother.

 

[Barry_Green]

Well, let's be clear -- if you want to match the look of the movies, you want the 7D's sensor size instead of the 5D's. Full stop, no further discussion required (unless you're trying to match the look of 70mm, in which case, fine, go ahead, use the 5D).

The 7D has the same size as a 35mm movie camera, meaning the same lenses will provide the same field of view, depth of field, and perspective that they would have on a movie camera. I say this as a guy who owns a 7D, and a 35mm movie camera. I have no interest in the 5D whatsoever, for "creating more of a film look" -- the 7D is the more appropriate product for that. Unquestionably.

Now -- as for wide lenses, yes the 5D can get wider, much wider, than the 7D. Same lens on the 5D will be a lot wider than on a 7D (or a movie camera). The corresponding issue is that a telephoto lens on the 7D will be much more telephoto than on the 5D.

As for shooting at f/1.3 -- someone would have to be pretty talented indeed to try to actually utilize full-frame 1.3 for any sort of motion shot. If you shot a closeup on a 5D, 50mm, T1.3 -- you're talking about having someone's pupil in focus, and their eyelashes out of focus. For a special effects shot, maybe -- but you couldn't pull off an interview like that, any time the person leaned forward or backward, they'd go out of focus!

As for f-stop and wanting that 1.3... read American Cinematographer, you'll find that movies are typically lit and shot to around an f/2.8 or 2.8/4 split (meaning f/3.4 in video camera terms). That's on a 35mm cinema frame. If you were on a full frame, you'd have to shoot at f/5.6 to get the cinema depth of field. 1.3 on a full-frame would be a very unusual, atypical look for a motion picture.

 

[yoclay]

I said it once and I'll say it again. It's all about the glass.

PL mounted lenses for the 7D - bring em on! I'll be the first in line.

But the 7D is not the RED. Having an academy sized sensor is a moot point if you haven't got the "academy's" lenses to go with it. This cannot be made up for by a few zooms which are 2 stops slower.

Frankly, with the 5D you HAVE got that whole range of appropriately scaled prime lenses already in existence, as well as more image information from the larger captor - leading to better performance overall, in the shadows and in low light. Who wouldn't want all that ?

Additionally. I often shoot wide open at f1.4 and it is never about getting just the eyelashes in focus. There are many situations where you need those two stops and it does make a difference, and yes I am able to pull focus and keep things sharp. Why? Because it's a wide angle, not a telephoto !

Honestly, why do you think the 7D is a $1000 cheaper? Isn't this the place where everyone is always saying you get what you pay for? If it was better in every respect than the 5D wouldn't it cost more, not less?

Whether it's stills or video, at the end of the day it's cheaper because you have a sensor which skews the range of available lenses out there to the longer end of the spectrum and which provides less image information for your final product. It's that simple.

 

[Barry_Green]

I said it once and I'll say it again. It's all about the glass.

Except that sharper-than-necessary glass seems to actually hurt the 7D's image... it's all about that aliasing thing...

PL mounted lenses for the 7D - bring em on! I'll be the first in line.

You can't -- the 7D can't take 'em, not unless you rip out the mirror.

But the 7D is not the RED. Having an academy sized sensor is a moot point if you haven't got the "academy's" lenses to go with it. This cannot be made up for by a few zooms which are 2 stops slower.

I'm certain I have no idea what you're talking about. What are "the adacemy's lenses"? You know that the Red's sensor is the same size as the 7D's, right? And that people use Nikon lenses on the Red all the time... so what's the problem?

Frankly, with the 5D you HAVE got that whole range of appropriately scaled prime lenses already in existence, as well as more image information from the larger captor - leading to better performance overall, in the shadows and in low light. Who wouldn't want all that ?

Only those of us looking to recreate the cinema look. for others, go right ahead, have your full frame all you want.

If it was better in every respect than the 5D wouldn't it cost more, not less?

Agreed. It's a better still camera, yes. But the 7D is the more appropriate cinema camera, shooting at the cinema frame rates and offering cinema field of view and cinema depth of field.

Whether it's stills or video, at the end of the day it's cheaper because you have a sensor which skews the range of available lenses out there to the longer end of the spectrum and which provides less image information for your final product. It's that simple.

Then enjoy your 5D. Just please allow those of us who use cinema frame size to enjoy our chosen products as well.

The argument is exactly like someone arguing that "30p is more cinematic than 24p". It isn't. Someone can say that it's more accurate in sampling motion, sure -- it is. But film uses 24fps, and so does 24p, and 24p is more cinematic than 30p, that's all there is to it. And film uses a 22mm-wide imaging area, and so does the 7D. A 22mm wide sensor recording at 24fps, is simply a better emulation of the cinematic/film experience than a 36mm-wide sensor recording at 30fps. How anyone could confuse the two and imply that the non-standard sensor at the non-standard frame rate is "more cinematic" or "more film like" is beyond my ability to understand. Nobody's saying there aren't advantages to the bigger sensor -- of course there are. But saying that anything about its differences make it "more filmlike" or "more cinematic" is just not defensible.

 

[ydgmdlu]

These wide angle lenses wouldn't be produced unless there was a need and a demand for them.

So? Just because a few cinematographers want to use such wide lenses in a few special cases doesn't mean that these lenses are used all the time in production after production. You linked a lens manufacturer's Web site; of course it's going to show every product that the company offers. But please find me a lens package from a rental house that includes these lenses (or focal lengths) as standard.

Allow me to use a photography-themed analogy. Let's say that you're a photographer who's always on the road, so you want to carry a camera bag with enough gear to cover your needs in the vast majority of situations, but not so much gear that the bag's too bulky/heavy to carry comfortably and conveniently. Leaving aside lenses, let's talk about filters. There are a lot of filters out there. Each major brand has hundreds of models; just look at its Web site! Obviously, you can't carry them all, but what would you deem to be essential to pack? Most people agree that the most useful are polarizers, NDs, and maybe UVs. You might even have room for a special effect filter or a color gel. But there are still so many other choices out there. Are they all essential? Surely, they wouldn't be produced unless there was a need and a demand for them. So a star filter is just as essential and commonly used as a polarizer, right?

That is the kind of point that you're trying to make. Saying that 12mm, 14mm, 16mm, 18mm, and 21mm are used all the time by cinematographers on production after production is just like saying that a star filter is used all the time by professional photographers on photo after photo.

I never claimed that other, shorter focal lengths are never used on 35mm productions. I emphasized the importance of the most commonly used focal lengths, which is just like recommending polarizers and NDs as the essential filters to have, above all others. Respectfully, please respond to my actual points instead of resorting to strawmen.

Are you a seasoned cinematographer who uses those ultra-wide focal lengths on a regular basis? Do you know many cinematographers who use those lenses all the time? Do you read trade publications about cinematography that constantly mention the use of those focal lengths? On what basis do you make your claim that the 7D NEEDS such lenses in order to achieve a "film look"? ESPECIALLY compared to the 5D?

And this from the Zeiss page (a somewhat credible source we might say):

"A widest stop of T1.3 allows shooting in low or available light for more natural-looking shots and a reduction of the lighting budget. In addition, a wide open stop creates the cinematic look of an extremely shallow depth of field."

Barry just used American Cinematographer, the industry standard trade publication about cinematography, as his source, not even to mention his own personal experience, to support the claim that movies are rarely shot at apertures wider than f/2.8 (or T2.8). That means that, by convention, necessity (thanks to ROCKMORE), and overwhelming professional consensus, wider apertures are not considered more cinematic. So, what else ya got?

But the 7D is not the RED. Having an academy sized sensor is a moot point if you haven't got the "academy's" lenses to go with it. This cannot be made up for by a few zooms which are 2 stops slower.

Sophistry. It's not two stops. We've already established (unless you further object) that almost all movies are shot at apertures no wider than f/2.8. If you're going to make a big fuss about T-stops, then I'll grant you f/2.5. Not even f/2.0. That's less than one stop. An f/2.8 zoom lens is good enough. Is there any reason why it's not?

And let me remind you that RED only offers prime lenses in the following focal lengths: 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, and 300mm, all of which are too easily found or approximated in the SLR lens world. So what's the big deal with those ultra-wide focal lengths if RED doesn't even offer prime lenses in those focal lengths for its own camera?

Frankly, with the 5D you HAVE got that whole range of appropriately scaled prime lenses already in existence, as well as more image information from the larger captor - leading to better performance overall, in the shadows and in low light. Who wouldn't want all that ?

The claim about the "whole range of appropriately-scaled prime lenses" is more misinformation. Focal length does not just affect field of view. It also affects depth of field and image compression (i.e. perspective distortion). Sure, you can use a 21mm lens on the 7D (or RED One, or Academy 35mm) to approximate the FOV of a 35mm lens on the 5D, but it will still look significantly different because the DOF will be greater at the same aperture, and the perspective distortion will be greater at any aperture.

Additionally. I often shoot wide open at f1.4 and it is never about getting just the eyelashes in focus. There are many situations where you need those two stops and it does make a difference, and yes I am able to pull focus and keep things sharp. Why? Because it's a wide angle, not a telephoto !

That still does not address the point of contention, which (let me remind you) is what parameters are needed to achieve a 35mm motion picture look as closely as possible.

Honestly, why do you think the 7D is a $1000 cheaper? Isn't this the place where everyone is always saying you get what you pay for? If it was better in every respect than the 5D wouldn't it cost more, not less?

Sophistry and strawman again. Feel free to quote from a previous post in this thread in which somebody claimed that the 7D is better than the 5D in every respect. On the contrary, I and others have clearly said that the 5D is better in a lot of respects. Why do you feel the need to resort to disingenuous arguments?

Whether it's stills or video, at the end of the day it's cheaper because you have a sensor which skews the range of available lenses out there to the longer end of the spectrum and which provides less image information for your final product. It's that simple.

That's a valid point, but once again, it's irrelevant when the goal is to approximate 35mm motion pictures as closely as possible. It's that simple.

BTW, if you can present some information of which I wasn't aware and which solidly refutes one or more of my points, then I will happily concede. It's not an ego thing here. It's about presenting accurate information in a public forum, no matter who does it.

 

[yoclay]

Which of these two given cameras looks more cinema-like? Sigh. Guess you would need to project it in a cinema to answer that question.

When the framerate update comes out for the 5D: Take your 20mm lens put it on your 7d and shoot in HD next to a 5d with an L series 35mmf1.4, do a film out and then we'll see what looks better on a 60ft. Cinema screen.

I think we all pretty much know which will look better. The 5D.

Next do that with an L series 24mmf1.4 lens for the 5D and the equivalent for the 7D (and yes, people do regularly use lenses which are equivalent to this wide in the cinema). Oh wait you can't, because it doesn't exist for the 7D, unless you want to use Canon's (or anyone else's) specialty fisheye lens. Oh ok then, use your zoom. Do a film out and project it on a 60ft. cinema screen.

Once again I think we all pretty clearly know which will look better. The 5D.

Do this with long lenses if you want. Shoot it again at f2.8 if you want. The answer remains the same.
Because even in these situations outside of the wide angle lens issues the sensor size does make a difference.

All the rest is "academic" as they say.

My last post on this topic.

 

[ROCKMORE]

I guess the only way we will know for sure is to shoot the same scene with both cameras and project them on a 60 foot screen.
Any volunteers once the 5D can shoot 24fps?
I would imagine the 5D sensor would appear sharper with more information in shadow areas, but I'm just imagining it and not actually looking at it. We can only judge from what we've seen on a small screen. I suppose the flaws the cameras produce would stand out at 60 feet pretty clearly as well.

 

[andrew00]

With this technology, I think we need to first consider what is the best choice for our purposes.

I got the 5D over the 7D b/c I wanted the full frame, wider view, as I shoot in a lot of small spaces. I also wanted better low light b/c I shoot often with natural light.

I'll miss out on slow mo, which I don't think is coming w/the 25P firmware, but I get the advantages I chose.

 

[ROCKMORE]

With this technology, I think we need to first consider what is the best choice for our purposes.

I got the 5D over the 7D b/c I wanted the full frame, wider view, as I shoot in a lot of small spaces. I also wanted better low light b/c I shoot often with natural light.

I'll miss out on slow mo, which I don't think is coming w/the 25P firmware, but I get the advantages I chose.

The 5D does have an amazing quality about it. There is nothing wrong with trying to make a film that looks like 70mm either.
Slow motion would be nice in the 5D but remember even with the RED ONE as you increase your frame rate, you usable sensor area will be limited to a smaller are portion in the center which adds a substantial crop factor. If the 5D were able to achieve higher frame rates, it too would have to reduce the usable area in order to be able to process the increased amount of data.
This does give the 7D a bit more consistency if you are planning different camera speeds and want to achieve the same camera view in each.
Does anyone actually know for sure which camera would produce better resolution on a 60 foot screen if you were able to match the the same lens resolution and sharpness to both?

 

[ydgmdlu]

Which of these two given cameras looks more cinema-like? Sigh. Guess you would need to project it in a cinema to answer that question.

Nope. You're telling me that a DVD of a 35mm production can't possibly look "more cinema-like," whether you view it on your HDTV or your little old TV set or your computer, when compared to a home movie shot on a mini-DV handycam?

When the framerate update comes out for the 5D: Take your 20mm lens put it on your 7d and shoot in HD next to a 5d with an L series 35mmf1.4, do a film out and then we'll see what looks better on a 60ft. Cinema screen.

I think we all pretty much know which will look better. The 5D.

But the point isn't about which one will look "better." It's about which one looks closer to the visual characteristics of 35mm motion pictures. You're still using strawman fallacies.

Next do that with an L series 24mmf1.4 lens for the 5D and the equivalent for the 7D (and yes, people do regularly use lenses which are equivalent to this wide in the cinema). Oh wait you can't, because it doesn't exist for the 7D, unless you want to use Canon's (or anyone else's) specialty fisheye lens.

This reminds me to highlight a major flaw in your reasoning that I previously overlooked. Nobody working in motion pictures today is trying to match cinema lenses to full-frame still lenses. No cinematographer is going to say, "I want to achieve the 24mm-FF-equivalent in this shot." Cinematographers don't think about full-frame, period. So why do you keep coming back to this point? Why do you keep referencing FF, working backward from FF, instead of talking about the actual focal lengths that cinematographers use on their 35mm motion picture cameras? The most common and conventional focal lengths, the ones that you see mentioned over and over again in article after article in American Cinematographer? It seems like a nonsensical approach to me.

But it makes perfect sense if your background is in still photography, rather than 35mm cinematography (which is something that you still have yet to clarify).

All the rest is "academic" as they say.

It's not just "academic." It's practical. We're talking about the way that 35mm movies are actually shot. We're talking about how 35mm movies actually look. The farther you get away from the technical aspects of 35mm cinematography, the more noticeable the differences are, naturally.

My last post on this topic.

Your loss, then.

Look, I have no problem with the fact that you think that the 5D looks better or more "cinematic" to you. I'm glad that you're so happy with the way that your 5D footage looks. But I do have a problem when you tell people things like...

When you look at a range of lenses for a cinema package they almost always cover the wides in a way that most photo lenses cannot currently do on a 7D.

As long as the lenses aren't cinema lenses, the argument that a 7D has a cinema size sensor is meaningless. Even RED knows they will have to create a smaller set of primes to cover their non FF cameras.

Otherwise, the closest you are going to get to an equivalent Cinema look is on the 5D with the lenses that were made for full frame.

Looking at your posts, it sure appears you have spent a lot of time trying to convince us that the 7D is a better camera and that I obviously know nothing about cinema.

But the 7D is not the RED. Having an academy sized sensor is a moot point if you haven't got the "academy's" lenses to go with it. This cannot be made up for by a few zooms which are 2 stops slower.

...all of which are almost completely unfounded and demonstrably false and terribly misleading. You still have yet to adequately support or defend any of those claims. How is this productive discussion?

But no hard feelings, man.

 

[ydgmdlu]

Does anyone actually know for sure which camera would produce better resolution on a 60 foot screen if you were able to match the the same lens resolution and sharpness to both?

Based on Camcorderinfo and Barry's extensive tests, the resolutions of the two cameras are roughly equal. 650-700 lines.

 

[ROCKMORE]

Based on Camcorderinfo and Barry's extensive tests, the resolutions of the two cameras are roughly equal. 650-700 lines.

Shooting a feature for film output with a camera that only generates 650-700 lines is a risky choice at best.
The camera body is only one small element in the effort. If you add a few other essentials such as lenses, camera support, lighting, audio, talent, crew, hair and makeup, location costs, editing and one or two years of your life, it may fall short in the end.
Don't forget the cost of scanning your film back out to 35mm film for even one projection print. 90 to 100 minutes of 35mm film will cost quite a bit.
If someone is serious about making that kind of commitment they would be far better raising the money to buy a better HD camera for their project and selling it the day they finish shooting to recover the investment.
Both these cameras are suited for a small screen as a stepping stone to larger theatrical film productions.

 

[Barry_Green]

Shooting a feature for film output with a camera that only generates 650-700 lines is a risky choice at best.

Well, yeah, but again -- theatrical films have been made on consumer camcorders, on DVX100s, on HVX200s, on Canon HF10 and XHA1 cameras... it depends on what the image is supposed to look like. For some types of films, you definitely want higher-quality cameras. But for "Jackass", was anything more than an HVX really necessary? I suspect not.

The camera body is only one small element in the effort. If you add a few other essentials such as lenses, camera support, lighting, audio, talent, crew, hair and makeup, location costs, editing and one or two years of your life, it may fall short in the end.

Amen.

Don't forget the cost of scanning your film back out to 35mm film for even one projection print. 90 to 100 minutes of 35mm film will cost quite a bit.
If someone is serious about making that kind of commitment they would be far better raising the money to buy a better HD camera for their project and selling it the day they finish shooting to recover the investment.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

Both these cameras are suited for a small screen as a stepping stone to larger theatrical film productions.

They are excellent to learn on, and for the budget-strapped. But they are not competition, quality-wise, for purpose-built HD video cameras or digital cinema cameras.

 

[JohnnyD]

LOL, I've never heard so much crazy stuff about the "cinema-like" look. I guess that 16mm camera I used isn't in the class of the "cinema-like" that some of you guy's refer too. Oh, and the Hi-8 camera that was used for "Hoop Dreams" Whooa, that doesn't fit into your 35mm "cinema-like" look.

Most of my work is in commercial photography and video production. I have worked on some movies years ago, but enjoy more what I'm doing now.
I just finished a shoot on a A340 airplane. I needed to capture the custom built rooms (bedrooms,office,etc.). They wanted steadi-cam shots. I used my 5D with a 16mm lens with a Glide-cam. Any other camera wouldn't have worked, ,,too big, not enough coverage. It looked great, not perfect,, had a few minor moire hits, but was pretty impressive and the client was happy.

So, let's not forget us guy's who use their cameras for other types of shoots. In fact, I bet only 5% of people on this forum will be able to make a living from just shooting full-length movies. It might be smaller than that. A few of my friends that are long time DPs, have to supplement their income shooting spots (Burger King,etc.), corporate film/videos, and so on.

I'm with James Camron on the subject of 24fps. Out, out, go away 24. Get rid of the stutter. My man. Couldn't agree more. My worst day from the client ,"let's shoot my commercial in 24P via the video camera, it will look like film". Sure, right. A spot on TV that will stutter really good with the fast action he wants.

One more thing. You don't shoot close-ups with a 50m lens on a 5D or any other full frame camera, unless you want a large nose protruding in your shot. You start at 80mm. and work up. The pricinpal is the same for any camera. Pick the right lens for the CU.

JohnnyD

 

[EOSHD]

Well, let's be clear -- if you want to match the look of the movies, you want the 7D's sensor size instead of the 5D's. Full stop, no further discussion required (unless you're trying to match the look of 70mm, in which case, fine, go ahead, use the 5D).

The 7D has the same size as a 35mm movie camera, meaning the same lenses will provide the same field of view, depth of field, and perspective that they would have on a movie camera. I say this as a guy who owns a 7D, and a 35mm movie camera. I have no interest in the 5D whatsoever, for "creating more of a film look" -- the 7D is the more appropriate product for that. Unquestionably.

Hello, I'm new to these forums but have been reading the threads recently.

Suppose an audience sits down to watch one of Barry's movies which he shot on his 7D... do they notice the artistry or the 35mm film characteristics? Because it sounds to me that Barry is determining his creativity with a mathematical set of specifications instead of what his eye thinks looks good? Why else would he choose a 7D over a 5D? They 5D clearly has the edge from what I've seen so far. Barry uses a specific sensor size alone, solely to determine his 'film look'. I feel the real meaning of 'film look' is entirely emotional, creative, subjective. And there are much larger image quality factors to consider than frame compression and field of view.

Actually, in cinema, 70mm is not considered the poor insignificant un-film like brother of 35mm. You cannot call the shots in Lawrence of Arabia or Baraka ugly or un-film like, and neither can you when it comes to the best 5D footage out there.

It is nonsense that the 7D can give a more 'film-look' than the 5D.

I own both, and the 5D has a more attractive image for much of the time. It's also sharper.

I agree with others here, notably the guy in the last post (Johnny) regarding the 'film look craziness'. None of what Barry says makes sense to me on an artistic level, it only seems to make sense on a text book page or in math class.

7D has the same sensor size as 35mm academy motion picture film.... really? So what? People don't notice these things and often don't have a frame of reference to compare one format to another. They see beauty in a shot like they do in a photograph. Cinematographers can get a little too far into the rock-face and the gear to realise that human beings can find a range of looks beautiful regardless of the format or technology used to create them.

Even in terms of the maths, the 5D is a finer camera in all respects. Image quality is a production quality, and the parameters are - low light performance, noise, grain ascetics, colour, dynamic range, how the sensor looks with a given lens. The 5D is superior in all my real worlds tests than the 7D in all those respects. Having a specific size measured in millimetres, and very small details regarding scene compression, field of view, etc. come a very distant last in my thoughts whilst shooting a film.

But if you're strange and you really do want the same 'characteristics' as 35mm motion picture film, and think the audience actually gives a damn, just adjust your shot or try a different lens... because also remember, the compression, framing, DOF and field of view is all shooter adjustable.

There seems a lot of miss-info on here, and stagnation in numbers and dogma from people who should really know better.