Are 7D owners amazingly talented or...

J. Odoms said:
Johnny, I love your candor brotha, you say whats usually on my mind, I'm just to lazy to type it.
Click to expand...
Thnx bro, to be honest with you, I didn't check back with this thread till this morning 'cause I thought I was gonna get bashed and was too chickn sh** to face the consequences of my thoughts. And not bashed by Barry, he's a really smart guy and can defend his opinions without resorting to that, but I felt I was gonna ruffle some feathers and catch a can of communal whoopass LOL, but I think my opinion is shared by many and needs to be stated.
 
Sweet!! 5D with 24p! As long as the CMOS skew isn't worse, I'm gonna have to seriously consider adding the 5D. 1D is out of my range 'till I get a big enough budget to justify it :(
 
I think the weakness of the 7D (and other cameras aswell) is masked by highly compressed footage posted on the webb.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The low light videos posted here have been amazing. But I took some low light video I shot last night and put it on the HDTV - some areas looked like crap. But it would look great on the internet after being scaled down and compressed.
 
Ryan Paige said:
That's interesting. I've been playing as much source footage as I could find on my HDTV, and I've thought most of it looked really nice.
Click to expand...

I'm talking really low light, with the ISO bumped to 6400. Like the fight video posted in the video section. That looks good scaled down for the internet. But 6400 ISO on the HDTV did not look very good at all - for me.
 
I associate the new HD-slr groundswell with film movements like the French new wave, where filmmakers were more concerned with the access that the equipment could provide to real-world locations and performance, rather than traditional aesthetics.

With the French new wave or Italian neo-realist movements, critics from within the industry harped on how a lack of classical lighting, or the inclusion of grain, or any other kind of percieved disadvantage in comparison to what is "professional" would make the final product less successful.

As it happened, it was quite the opposite. New forms were created, conventions broken, and a new
movement was born that closely connected with audiences and pushed cinema into different directions.

The ability to shoot in such low light and be so inconspicuous with a stilll camera offers far more creative advantages, especially in terms of performance and location access, that any pixel peeping could ever diminish.

Movements are interesting because they divide camps into what people think is ultimately more important for their vision.
 
Jim Klatt said:
The ability to shoot in such low light and be so inconspicuous with a stilll camera offers far more creative advantages, especially in terms of performance and location access, that any pixel peeping could ever diminish.
Click to expand...
Very true, and these are the advantages (along with cheap access to shallow DOF) that the HDSLRs are excelling in.
 
Thnx for the input Jim.
I wish I was more informed when it comes to the history of filmmaking. Think I need to take some film appreciation classes. :)
 
Barry_Green said:
Knowing what the facts are doesn't mean you have to change your preferences. It just means now you know.
Click to expand...

And knowing is half the battle!

That said I do agree with Barry, this is a technical forum, it's about information. For example in the advent of all this I'm going to try and avoid finely detailed grates and I probably won't dress actors in busy plaid. The DVX had some flaws especially in squeeze mode, what did we do? Work around it. HVX has some heavy flaws and what did we do worked around them. My $1600 7D has some flaws and I'm going to shoot around them. The one constant in these cases? I'm still shooting.
 
What I sometimes don’t understand is folk’s expectations to shoot very high ISOs and just plop that footage up on the screen. What about doing post work….like cleaning up your image? I understand shooting film can get pretty dirty also and that people have been cleaning their footage in post work for ages. I don’t expect any camera to do all the work for me. Sure, I want the cleanest image possible but I’ll go into it “expecting” to do a little bit of clean up work after the fact. These cams can see so well into the dark that I don’t mind the added work. If I have to go up to ISO 6400 I’ll expect the good with the bad and hope for the best.
 
Cleaning up the image can sometimes means an even uglier image, especially when removing noise (luma or chroma) from flesh.

I suppose an extremely light denoise, but removing it just isn't an option with footage acquired from these cameras, I believe.

But that's not why I came back to this thread. I came back because I watched a few new 7D videos I had yet to see and noticed that I was noticing that very few were able to differentiate themselves from each other. And worse off, there are a few image anomalies, operator errors mostly, that keep ripping me out of work.

From White Balancing to handheld camera action on WIDE lenses, yes 35mm's and 50mm's that's shaky and jarring. The lack of any refreshing wide angle compositions, just a host of details that stand out more than ever. Choppy Focus Pulling, etc. And these just arent' camera tests, I'm watching Music Videos and such seeing this.

So, what Johnny asks? Are 7D owners just talented? I hope so. Sure, it may be in the eyes of your peers that these small image mishaps-- half n'half lighting, composition, iffy camera operating and technique, and more-- appear for NOW, but they WILL begin to show up to audience members and producers soon enough.

There's another comment in the 5D forum, someone shot a Fashion piece with the MKii and the jewelry was aliased to hell. Sure, he probably should have used a different camera, but at the end of the day even the client noticed the aliasing.

We may get away with these things for now, but it surely won't be long until the camera truly IS the last brickwall to hide behind.

Even I'm scurred.
 
Jim Klatt said:
I associate the new HD-slr groundswell with film movements like the French new wave, where filmmakers were more concerned with the access that the equipment could provide to real-world locations and performance, rather than traditional aesthetics.

With the French new wave or Italian neo-realist movements, critics from within the industry harped on how a lack of classical lighting, or the inclusion of grain, or any other kind of percieved disadvantage in comparison to what is "professional" would make the final product less successful.

As it happened, it was quite the opposite. New forms were created, conventions broken, and a new
movement was born that closely connected with audiences and pushed cinema into different directions.

The ability to shoot in such low light and be so inconspicuous with a stilll camera offers far more creative advantages, especially in terms of performance and location access, that any pixel peeping could ever diminish.

Movements are interesting because they divide camps into what people think is ultimately more important for their vision.
Click to expand...

That is a very interesting point. I have been catching up on my knowledge of the French New Wave, the UK Direct Cinema and Italian Neo-realism movements with NetFlix and am very impressed. I absolutely agree that the rise of these avant guard filmmaking movements was very much tied to changes in technology, especially the light weight cameras, portable sound recording devices, and faster film stocks that became available in the late '40s, '50's and early '60s.

The DV revolution which is in it's 15th year, give or take, has had an influence on filmmaking, for sure, but I have been kind of disappointed that there has not been the rise of a modern "New Wave", that embraced the aesthetics of digital video (in all it's flavors) to change the way visual stories are told, in a way that the previous filmmaking movement did, or a least tried to do. (Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Dogma '95.... yadda, yadda, yadda...). I guess my disappointment with that is that since it's inception, Digital Video has been seen, by a lot of folks. as just a cheaper way to do what we have been doing, i.e, make fictional narratives stories on film (with it's tried and true, I guess, aesthetic). I had kinda wanted DV, with it's unique aesthetics, in its, now, varied flavors, to have evolved into a more mainstream new way to tell stories, for a mass audience... besides, YouTube... However, I digress and think that this tangent is for another thread/forum. Sorry.

What I wanted to post on this thread was... Tonight I watched the WGBH produced PBS broadcast show "Frontline", with an episode called "The Warning". I noticed a couple of things. First, the producers of "Frontline" are using more stylized visuals, with subtle motion graphics and image manipulation for creative effect. Which is very cool. Second, I noticed that they in these more stylized portions of the show, they used images that screamed, "HD-DSLR Video". Now, watching this episode, I was in my "Political, Historian, Economic Geek" mode, because of the story. However, it did not take long for the "Filmmaker GeeK" to take over, once they went stylized and the images that I think that were shot with a HD-DSLR were shown.

Now I don't know for sure if the images I saw were actually shot with a HD-DSLR, and I certainly do not know which camera they used, but those shots, of Wall Street at night, were so unique in there aesthetics, compared to the high end HD footage that they were inter-cut with, I absolutely have to believe that they were HD-DSLR shots. The shots, of the Wall Street Bull statue, from a moving vehicle, showed the DOF characteristics and outstanding low light performance that the multiple posts around here from the HD-DSLRs show. What really distinguished these shots, compared to the high end HD footage they were inter-cut with, is that the other footage, obviously were shot at very slow shutter speeds, to get the proper exposure, while the HD-DSLR shots, probably, used an increased ISO settings, with more normal shutter speeds. That offers a different kind of look.

It struck me, right away, that while I have been kind of "Poo-Pooing" these new cameras, I think that they might just represent an new kind of aesthetic tool that will be quickly embraced. They obviously have limitations, and we all should thank Barry for taking the time to test and point them out to us, but I do see, now, that these cameras can be a powerful tool in the hands of creative image makers.
 
Depends how you use the camera.

If you run around in a city at night, freehand style, twisting the focus ring like mad on full open and things like that you get that DSLR look we seen so much.

Some like it, some hate it. I don´t like it.

But if you handle the camera like a camera - (tripod, careful focusing, watching your levels and so on) and profit from the low light capabilities then you can get some nice footage out of them that does not scream DSLR.

Here is a grab of some narrative work I done with the 5D in my (god knows) lowlight library. If I had to do the same thing with my HVX/LEX combo, I would have needed a ton of light - with the 5D I used what was there (and you can´t barley read a book at this illumination) plus a Wellness Light to raise the ambient level a tad.

And if you forget the moire on the jacket for a moment, I think it looks quiet pleasing, without screaming DSLR. Heck, someone even asked me if this was shot on a RED.

What I found, is that the codec pretty fast falls apart when it comes to color grading. So you better make sure you get it as close as possible in the camera.

Frank
 

Attachments

  • Sequence-05.jpg
    Sequence-05.jpg
    110.2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
well that NOCTURNE video is an interesting example.

I quite enjoyed it, but several shots cried out for some fill light or a reflector.
 
David G. Smith said:
That is a very interesting point. I have been catching up on my knowledge of the French New Wave, the UK Direct Cinema and Italian Neo-realism movements with NetFlix and am very impressed. I absolutely agree that the rise of these avant guard filmmaking movements was very much tied to changes in technology, especially the light weight cameras, portable sound recording devices, and faster film stocks that became available in the late '40s, '50's and early '60s.
Click to expand...

Thumbs up. The technology is what it's all about, not the established rules of the industry. I love the French New Wave stuff and French cinema in general. Hollywood has it's fair share of new technology to play with now as well though. I think the next major change in the mainstream Hollywood film making industry is going to be with Avatar. That the kind of film that's thrown out a lot of the dogma and replaced it with new technology. Jim Cameron is the man to do that.

And at the other end of the scale you have Dogme 95, which throws out the rule book and traditional US based industry way of thinking. As a Brit, I feel closer in perspective to the French, German and Dutch than to some of the US pros on here.

What works over here and how we think, doesn't always have to follow what Hollywood says and the new DSLRs are a perfect case in point.
 
I wouldn't take what people say here at dvxuser as an example of what "hollywood says". People have a point of view based on their working experience, or what they've learned to be correct. If you want to work in narrative filmmaking, which relies on a great deal of effective communication between crew members, it's best to work in the way they traditionally work and learn their lingo because its actually important.

If you wish to be entirely independent, like the Dogme crews of the 1990's and early 2000, then it doesn't matter how other people do it. You just work the way you want to work, and shoot what looks good to you in the manner which suits you.

Everyone just muddles through it until they find what works for them. That is, if they care enough.

commanderspike said:
Thumbs up. The technology is what it's all about, not the established rules of the industry. I love the French New Wave stuff and French cinema in general. Hollywood has it's fair share of new technology to play with now as well though. I think the next major change in the mainstream Hollywood film making industry is going to be with Avatar. That the kind of film that's thrown out a lot of the dogma and replaced it with new technology. Jim Cameron is the man to do that.

And at the other end of the scale you have Dogme 95, which throws out the rule book and traditional US based industry way of thinking. As a Brit, I feel closer in perspective to the French, German and Dutch than to some of the US pros on here.

What works over here and how we think, doesn't always have to follow what Hollywood says and the new DSLRs are a perfect case in point.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah good point, if you're working with others you have to fit in. If not, then you just have to fit in with your own way of working and own equipment and use the correct way of thinking for the technology in question. I certainly wouldn't be a nazi about rules and standards, what's the point? Some people seem to take great pleasure in these things but for me it's all about the technology and the craft.
 
Film is finally moving to reflect post-post modern philosophy. Postmodern philosophy, particulary Baudrillard's Simulatactra and Simulation, says, among many other things, that we have moved into a era where we prefer simulations of reality to accurate portrayals of reality. The emerging post postmodern aesthetic leaves behind the nihilism of postmodernism and says that simulations are fine as long as they create a new aesthetically mediated experience of transcendence. Anything that lets each viewer create a new unified experience is acceptable as long as there is both art and continuity, if you have these things then any new reality can be accepted as long as it is pleasing. This will be the playground of the hybrid DSLRs and their totally arbitrary, but aesthetically pleasing, new view of reality.

Look at today's aesthetic experience. We are surrounded by simulations, one crashing on the other in a cacophony of experience so intense that the most boring person of today can carry more sensual memories than the most vital person of yesteryear. Television and movies allow us to soar with heroes and cry at tragedy. Advertisements routinely craft small islands of perfection that constantly beguile our consciousness. Computer games create entire worlds that respond instantly to our wishes. Disney World and Las Vegas transport us from “real” life and place us in fantasies that allow us to experience things our ancestors would have considered to be magical.

We have become a culture of experience junkies who constantly seek greater and more intense experiences. Our addiction is simulations of life – heroic movies, romantic comedies, pornography, computer games, vacation resorts, fantasy telephone services, and New Age idealism. Sony Play Station expressed this best in their advertising slogan, “Live in your world, play in ours.”

What we cannot experience directly, we experience indirectly through simulations of real life. Just look at modern television and you can easily see “reality” shows that are anything but real. What is most important about these shows is that even though they depict artificial situations and feature people acting for the cameras rather behaving naturally, these shows are accepted as a valid way of living that millions of people emulate. We have entered a time where simulations are more important than “true reality.”

We move in and out of different simulated realities so often that there is no one reality to the way we live our lives. Our experience tells us that every reality, everything we see, is an illusion. We know, we feel, that today’s world is creating a new truth that is independent of the single reality of the old scientific and religious worlds. We expect to be able to choose our reality.

Will the hybrid DSLRs create the film that reflects post postmodern sensibilities? It sure looks that way - and it is an exciting prospect.
 
Last edited:
philiplipetz said:
Film is finally moving to reflect post-post modern philosophy. Postmodern philosophy, particulary Baudrillard's Simulatactra and Simulation, says, among many other things, that we have moved into a era where we prefer simulations of reality to accurate portrayals of reality. The emerging post postmodern aesthetic leaves behind the nihilism of postmodernism and says that simulations are fine as long as they create a new aesthetically mediated experience of transcendence. Anything that lets each viewer create a new unified experience is acceptable as long as there is both art and continuity, if you have these things then any new reality can be accepted as long as it is pleasing. This will be the playground of the hybrid DSLRs and their totally arbitrary, but aesthetically pleasing, new view of reality.

Look at today's aesthetic experience. We are surrounded by simulations, one crashing on the other in a cacophony of experience so intense that the most boring person of today can carry more sensual memories than the most vital person of yesteryear. Television and movies allow us to soar with heroes and cry at tragedy. Advertisements routinely craft small islands of perfection that constantly beguile our consciousness. Computer games create entire worlds that respond instantly to our wishes. Disney World and Las Vegas transport us from “real” life and place us in fantasies that allow us to experience things our ancestors would have considered to be magical.
Click to expand...

??????????????????? i just wanna make movies :(
 
Film philosophy is relevant in this way - do we want to make films that amplify reality or change reality? As CommanderSpike points out portable recording devices started a film movement that alarmed traditionalists because it lost all of the technical values needed to make a studio film. Yet it worked. In the same way hybrid DSLRs alarm traditionalists who very correctly point out that they create artificial detail that does not exist - in every frame.

So the relevant question is if the European autuer film revolution of the 1950s and 60s will be repeated in some new way, and if that is the case then we should remember that we are inventing new rules, new ways of stacking and altering images and sound, that will NOT reflect what is taught in film school, or what is accepted industry practice. Perhaps this new technology produce better films with worse technological values, just like happened before, and if that is so then we should know that it will also produce a new aesthetic.

And that will be the talent of the 7d shooters, as suggested by the OP. The OP's question asked if the 7d shooters amazingly talented or just can't tell that their films technically suck. What I am suggesting is that they don't care about technical excellence, that they do not care about "accurate" portrayals of reality. I wonder if this attitude might form a new film revolution similar to when happened when the European film auteur school proclaimed that portability was more important than technological perfection.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top