Definitely. But not in every scenario. An HPX500, for example, is approved for every HD Broadcast scenario, and will not present most issues the 7D has. Yes, no 35mm DOF, but also no Aliasing and decent low light/ and better codec. Of course, the HPX is a 10 000 USD camera, heavy, shoulder mount, etc.
7D impressions...
- Thread starter SPZ
- Start date
Definitely. But not in every scenario. An HPX500, for example, is approved for every HD Broadcast scenario, and will not present most issues the 7D has. Yes, no 35mm DOF, but also no Aliasing and decent low light/ and better codec. Of course, the HPX is a 10 000 USD camera, heavy, shoulder mount, etc.
alexdias
Well-known member
In the real world the fact that most Broadcasts would not "approve" the codec (the camera itself has very little to do with it) is irrelevant since you'll be editing and mastering in a a different codec anyway.
When push comes to shove if they like your content and it looks alright they will go for it.
Gordon Prince
Well-known member
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
I was addressing the extreme ends of the arguments from both sides is all, not a blanket statement. Perhaps I could have been clearer...
How does it make any difference to the grading? Grading is applied in the colourspace of the project and the render output, whether the source is the raw mov or the mov converted into a better format makes no difference as far as I understand it and from having compared the two myself in after effects with a 16 bit project.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
The 7D's and 5D's aliasing is more visually objectionable because it doesn't just change the perceived detail, it also changes the color.
The GH1 will have almost as much moire as a 7D, but on the 7D it changes into rainbow color patterns (primarily purple and orange). Chroma moire, instead of just luma moire, makes it more noticeable.
If you take out all the aliasing, you'd take out all the perceived sharpness too.
In an ideal video camera, you'd have sharpness made from nothing but actual resolved image detail. The DSLRs don't have that much actual detail, and they let a lot of aliasing through, and that aliasing can look like image detail but it's inaccurate and, if it's a moving shot, you'll find that the aliasing moves across the surface of the image.
Something like the Caprock filters (which I've got to get one of, by the way) probably filter out the excess aliased detail, leaving the camera with only its resolved image detail. Which is fine, but it puts it back in medium-def territory.
Frankly, while that may horrify some folks, I'd have to ask (if there were no DSLRs on the market) "what would you think of a $1700 camera that shoots a beautiful artifact-free 720p @ 24fps"... I think we'd all line up around the block to buy it...
The GH1 will have almost as much moire as a 7D, but on the 7D it changes into rainbow color patterns (primarily purple and orange). Chroma moire, instead of just luma moire, makes it more noticeable.
If you take out all the aliasing, you'd take out all the perceived sharpness too.
In an ideal video camera, you'd have sharpness made from nothing but actual resolved image detail. The DSLRs don't have that much actual detail, and they let a lot of aliasing through, and that aliasing can look like image detail but it's inaccurate and, if it's a moving shot, you'll find that the aliasing moves across the surface of the image.
Something like the Caprock filters (which I've got to get one of, by the way) probably filter out the excess aliased detail, leaving the camera with only its resolved image detail. Which is fine, but it puts it back in medium-def territory.
Frankly, while that may horrify some folks, I'd have to ask (if there were no DSLRs on the market) "what would you think of a $1700 camera that shoots a beautiful artifact-free 720p @ 24fps"... I think we'd all line up around the block to buy it...
True. However, some of the 7D artifacts just cannot be corrected in post. I'm used to high end grading and post, and from what I see with the 7D footage I shot- attention, I'm saying 7D, not 5D- it presents serious issues that even top post production cannot help.
But it is, indeed, like Barry said, a bargain for 1700 USD. If I was exclusively shooting short films and doing direct to DVD or Web Content, I would most certainly recommend it.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
TO The OP
Could you post the last four digits of your serial number..
Being not happy with my camera while others rave about theirs I think there may be some variance
Mine is number 1790 or there abouts - an early model I think - maybe they got the first few a bit wrong - mine is a bit like there are stockings on the lenses !
S
Could you post the last four digits of your serial number..
Being not happy with my camera while others rave about theirs I think there may be some variance
Mine is number 1790 or there abouts - an early model I think - maybe they got the first few a bit wrong - mine is a bit like there are stockings on the lenses !
S
I don't know if this is the number you're looking for- 3814b008aa
Here's the HD file I put in VImeo. It was recompressed from DVCPRO HD 1080p 25 to H264 25mbits/sec.
http://www.vimeo.com/7643951
Notice wide shot pan from the ground/ there's aliasing on the church's walls, as well as the ground floor. This is not acceptable, IMO, for broadcast.
http://www.vimeo.com/7643951
Notice wide shot pan from the ground/ there's aliasing on the church's walls, as well as the ground floor. This is not acceptable, IMO, for broadcast.
Last edited:
Have you been watching much CNN lately? There's moire everywhere. I'm beginning to wonder if at least some of the moire is caused by squeezing the HD signal down to SD for display on my little SD TV? Look at the wide shot on Larry King's set in SD...unbelievable amount of moire. On FOX News Sunday, Mike Wallace's tie was going nuts through the whole hour. Moire is everywhere in broadcast TV.
Ian-T
Veteran
There’s a guy in these forums who is an anchor and he posts all of the material he shoots for television on Vimeo. He uses the 5Dll and the GH-1 exclusively. It all looks great. Now if that’s not for broadcast then I don’t know what is. I think a lot of these complaints about “not good for broadcast" is coming from folks who are used to using higher end gear… But what I see as “personal preference” is a lot different from reality (IMO).
One thing I will say though: even though I complain and am disappointed in a way with this little cam, I will be shooting my next short film with it. For guerrilla filmmaking, this camera IS fantastic: excelent low light, very discrete form factor, and 35mm adapter calibre results. If not for HD channel selling, the quality of this cam is good enough for pratically any other application, like International FIlm Festivals.
johnhafner
Active member
Is the ALO (Auto Lighting Optimizer) turned on? I'm very curious if this is what is causing it. ALO is ON and set to STRONG! by default on the 7d. ALO is off by default on the 5 mkii. I have found that ALO SEVERELY reduces perceived sharpness, dynamic range and overall image quality on most shots (especially properly exposed shots with dark shadows)
Can you try the same shots with it turned off and post your results?
ALO = Aesthetic look; obliterated.
Disclaimer: "Sometimes It does help me when shooting where subject light levels are too low , by reducing dark shadows on faces, but it has the side effect ruining the dimensionality of the lighting. It looks to me similar to having flat spot on a photoshop curve"