Are 7D owners amazingly talented or...

[Bertholt4]

Excuse me to chime in, but Jean-Luc Godard said the "24times a second reality thing" about cinema in regard of the Vietcongs machine gun - which outputs 24 times a second a bullet. Also the German film-maker Michael Haneke says: "Film is 24 times a lie in one second"

I think there are several approaches to film as reality or fiction - but please don`t
misinterpret Godard! Watch some of his films and you won`t go for the reality-thing!

Just my two cents

 

[Rakesh Jacob]

Excuse me to chime in, but Jean-Luc Godard said the "24times a second reality thing" about cinema in regard of the Vietcongs machine gun - which outputs 24 times a second a bullet. Also the German film-maker Michael Haneke says: "Film is 24 times a lie in one second"

I think there are several approaches to film as reality or fiction - but please don`t
misinterpret Godard! Watch some of his films and you won`t go for the reality-thing!

Just my two cents

Thnx for clearing that up, that's a hefty difference in meaning!

 

[David G. Smith]

Excuse me to chime in, but Jean-Luc Godard said the "24times a second reality thing" about cinema in regard of the Vietcongs machine gun - which outputs 24 times a second a bullet. Also the German film-maker Michael Haneke says: "Film is 24 times a lie in one second"

I think there are several approaches to film as reality or fiction - but please don`t
misinterpret Godard! Watch some of his films and you won`t go for the reality-thing!

Just my two cents

I had heard that also, but thought it was about the guns of the Algerian rebels, (doesn't matter)... yeah, with his frequent use of the Brechtian alienation devics in his flicks, I don't think that Godard every considered his films as representations of reality, but as a reality unto themselves (the merging of content and style). I like that and am becoming more and more of a fan of his. There is a good discussion of this on rhe audio commentary on the Criterion Collection version of "Weekend", which is climbing my list of fav flims by him.

Some filmmakers work with "one plus one equals two" and other filmmakers, (Godard included, in my opinion) work with "One plus one equals three (an new entity, separate from the sum of the parts). Both approaches are valid, again, in my opinion.

I know, I know... "How many light bulbs...."! :smile:

 

[Ben_B]

I thoroughly agree. Which is why it's distressing to see new technologies invented which keep progressively painting the cameraman into a smaller and smaller box. Long-GoP, rolling shutter, and now heavily-aliased imaging, have all caused constraints on the ways these cameras can be used and the type of shots that they can be used for.

On the flip side, those technologies have also brought about much lower price tags and smaller equipment, inventing new types of shots or making these new types of shots easier to pull off, and providing access to new users.

Two-edged sword.

Some argue that art is all about constraints and what you do to them. Some believe that doing things with limited equipment forces you to be more creative. There's a lot of film theorists that believe and practice this, and there are specific production guidelines and techniques you can experiment with to try this....I believe those theorists can go eat their own feet. I don't want to film on a broken Bolex that starts and stops recording randomly and films at 32.4 frames per second...thanks.

 

[Rory_B]

32.4 frames per second would make for an interesting workflow.

 

[jdv]

I'm gonna let the article make the point, and if people want to disagree after that, hey, it's a free country, go right ahead. But my reasoning and observations as to what I've found are laid out here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=187503

Holly smokes Barry, this blew me away:

"In fact, aliasing is at the core of the new HDSLRs! Aliasing is why they look so very sharp (and, admittedly, they do look very sharp). Just be aware that their images are simply chock full of fake, aliased “detail.” There's not a lot of genuine resolution there, so the sharpness you're seeing is aliasing. And aliasing happens all the time, not just when you notice it. It's always there, in any scene where the fine detail in the image is too small for the sampling system to accurately represent it. I would go so far as to say that a large percentage of the "sharpness" of HDSLR video is not sharpness at all, but is actually aliasing."

Wow. Some part of me is very glad I haven't sold my JVC 100 for one of these things. I just can't bare to do it... as much as I'm intrigued by the large sensor size...

john

 

[Barry_Green]

Aliasing is "the new pixel shift" -- it's another way to get perceived higher-resolution images. I mean, it's not really a technology, it's more of a "happy accident", but -- there are benefits to the new technology. Images that will be much brighter in low light conditions, with inherent shallow depth of field, from a camera that's 1/4 the size of your existing camera, and that costs $1500 to $2000.

The downside is that much of the detail they provide is technically fake. In most circumstances it just doesn't matter, it will look good, and much sharper than your HD100. But like all shortcuts, there are drawbacks too -- and jaggy lines and rainbow moire are two huge ones. They won't always be visible in the footage, but when they draw attention to themselves they can be very distracting.

I tend to give 'em leeway because of the price tag. My GH1 was $1500... I don't care if it's all smoke and mirrors, it was less than 1/3 the cost of my HPX170! It's less than 1/3 the cost of my Letus Ultimate. And it's less than 1/9 the cost of my HPX170 + Ultimate. So I'll put up with some aliasing and moire for what it is -- but people would be well advised to learn how these things do what they do, and when they can bite you, because when they bite you, it hurts!

 

[maarek]

Long-GoP, rolling shutter, and now heavily-aliased imaging, have all caused constraints on the ways these cameras can be used and the type of shots that they can be used for.

I disagree vehemently.

What kind off equipment could you get for 10 000$ 10 years ago? And what equipment does that money buy you today? When you include editing systems, audio mixers and the like, we have an enormous amount of options and flexibility now than we've ever had before.

As filmmakers, we are much better off now than we were 10 years ago

Making movies has been democratised. There's no one stopping anyone from making a great film with the 7d. The aliasing is a minor problem. Rolling shutter is workable. If you don't want them, get a ccd videocamera with a smaller sensor. Nothing is stopping anyone.

The story and production is what matters. And frankly...the 7d does not hold anyone back in storytelling.

 

[Barry_Green]

I disagree vehemently.

Perhaps, but are you disagreeing with what I actually wrote?

I said that these technologies fail during certain scenarios, scenarios that we never had to worry about before. I don't know how someone can disagree with that.

What kind off equipment could you get for 10 000$ 10 years ago? And what equipment does that money buy you today? When you include editing systems, audio mixers and the like, we have an enormous amount of options and flexibility now than we've ever had before.

This has never been in dispute.

Making movies has been democratised.

Again. Just like it was with the introduction of the 16mm format, or the 8mm format, or the Super 8 format, or VHS, or Hi8, or BetaSP, or DV, or 24fps, or consumer HD, or tapeless... The "revolution" has happened about a dozen times so far, and it'll happen another dozen times too.

There's no one stopping anyone from making a great film with the 7d.

Or with a DVX, or an HVX, or a GH1, or a Sony PC7 ("The Celebration"), or with a 16mm camera ("El Mariachi") or with anything else. If you have it within you to make a great film, the equipment won't hold you back. And if you don't have it within you to make a great film, no amount of equipment will change that.

The aliasing is a minor problem.

Perhaps to you. Perhaps in some scenarios. Perhaps it will pooch you. Just be aware of it.

Rolling shutter is workable.

In most scenarios, yes. In some, no. Just like the aliasing.

If you don't want them, get a ccd videocamera with a smaller sensor. Nothing is stopping anyone.

Agreed. Know what the products can do and choose the appropriate one for the job.

The story and production is what matters. And frankly...the 7d does not hold anyone back in storytelling.

Neither does an iPod Nano. Or a GH1. Or a Flip HD. Or a Red. But every one of them has compromises and demands compromises and workarounds on the part of the shooter. Go try to do "Time Code" on a 7D, you'll find out that there's limitations there... there are limitations and workarounds required with all these products.

 

[bwwd]

I would disagree,some stories are good enough to deserve DOF of professional films not ipod sh**tty youtube look.I also wouldnt put flipHD with RED in one sentence.
About this aliasing, i dont know but ive seen yesterday 2 films and both had aliasing problems but were shot on film,is this conversion mistake somewhere by someone ,i dont quite care,it reaches DVD quality,its watchable, i actually saw it after 7th time when i was looking for it,i never searched for this in films/motion pictures/movies before.BUT i remember ive seen this before on my TV when i was a kid ,it was on movies shot on film and i was like "what is this ? oh i dont care i won stop watching movie because of this but i will remember this as some funny/weird tower window effect".
IVe seen sh**tty DV resolution footage on 2K cinema screen and it was watchable,was grainy and noisy but still watchable and it was in cinema so looks like they can even display sh*tty quality SD vids and peoples would watch anyway.

 

[David G. Smith]

Barry, I for one want to thank you for all the work you do and all the information you post on this board for us. My hat is off to you also for your thick skin, in handling some of the criticism you get here, and for you ability to stay objective. I think that I have learned more from you, by reading your posts here, than just about any other source, outside of more than a few years of knocking my head against the wall trial and error. Thanks again. I had not been considering getting into the HD-DSLR game, but with your tests, explaining the limitations, and the strengths of these cameras, I am much more confident that they are valuable tools, with limitations that need to be considered, and have actually started to think about getting a HD-DSLR. I would consider this much like the Elmo 1012-XLS Super 8mm camera I just picked up. Just like the Elmo, I probably would not do all my production on a HD-DSLR, right now, but, it sure would be a handy camera to have for specific situations or projects.

Thanks.

 

[Barry_Green]

I had one of those, the Elmo 1012. That was a great super-8 camera!

 

[David G. Smith]

I had one of those, the Elmo 1012. That was a great super-8 camera!

Oh yeah, I am loving it. My favorite Super 8 camera is the Canon 1014-XLS, and I am keeping my eye out to get another one of those (my original was stolen.... broke my heart), but they are still relatively expensive. I picked up the 1012 for less than a hundred bucks off eBay and it seems to work fine and is very clean. I want to shot more Super 8. With the modern stocks and high quality transfers, I think it will be a great tool. It is hard to beat that look. I made my first money in filmmaking shooting Super 8, transfered to and edited on 3/4" SP video. Talk about tools with limitations, imagine doing a film chain Super 8 transfer with a little Chinon dual 8 projector, with a butter knife to replace the motor rheostat knob, projected against a white card, set up in front of a honking big Public Access Sony Umatic S/P camera. It was great!

 

[ydgmdlu]

I had heard that also, but thought it was about the guns of the Algerian rebels, (doesn't matter)... yeah, with his frequent use of the Brechtian alienation devics in his flicks, I don't think that Godard every considered his films as representations of reality, but as a reality unto themselves (the merging of content and style). I like that and am becoming more and more of a fan of his. There is a good discussion of this on rhe audio commentary on the Criterion Collection version of "Weekend", which is climbing my list of fav flims by him.

Some filmmakers work with "one plus one equals two" and other filmmakers, (Godard included, in my opinion) work with "One plus one equals three (an new entity, separate from the sum of the parts). Both approaches are valid, again, in my opinion.

I know, I know... "How many light bulbs...."! :smile:

No, you've got Godard wrong. He said, ""Film is truth 24 times a second, and every cut is a lie." Nothing to do with representing reality.

 

[David G. Smith]

No, you've got Godard wrong. He said, ""Film is truth 24 times a second, and every cut is a lie." Nothing to do with representing reality.

Oh no, I agree, and apologize, if it came out wrong, but I would never suggest that Godard ever thought that his films represented reality. I think that he was of the "One plus one equals three" school of filmmaking, where never forgetting that you are watching a film is an integral part of watching the film, and, in many respects, may be the main point of the film.

 

[docrock]

"Aliasing is "the new pixel shift" -- it's another way to get perceived higher-resolution images. I mean, it's not really a technology, it's more of a "happy accident", but -- there are benefits to the new technology. Images that will be much brighter in low light conditions, with inherent shallow depth of field, from a camera that's 1/4 the size of your existing camera, and that costs $1500 to $2000."

I was as ignorant to aliasing and moire two weeks ago as the vast majority of the film "watching" world...Thanks for bringing it to my attention Barry....last weekend watching both NCAA and NFL football games, it's almost all I could see on wide shots of the field LOL...Talk about distracting, now that I know what I'm looking for....as well, your example of the wagon wheel appearing to go backwards...interesting indeed....I've seen it a million times and never realized exactly how it was happening....thanks for the great read (your article on aliasing)...

"The downside is that much of the detail they provide is technically fake. In most circumstances it just doesn't matter, it will look good, and much sharper than your HD100. But like all shortcuts, there are drawbacks too -- and jaggy lines and rainbow moire are two huge ones. They won't always be visible in the footage, but when they draw attention to themselves they can be very distracting."

I guess I've never paid nearly as much attention to the faults of my DVX/HVX200a and EX1 as I have in the last 6 months...to the shortcomings of my 5d2 and now 7d. I bought them strictly as for limited DOF shots initially, as the price was close to the same as a Letus setup. (I already owned Canon glass)....

I guess my point...I am now terrified to shoot my HVX into any of these scenarios....are there moire/aliasing/line skipping issues with our HVX/EX setups....I am aware of the rollin shutter issues on my Sony....but I am now very curious about moire. Also, the resolution tests...the HMC40 is obviously the newer breed of the Panny cams...you know what....I just realized what a DA I am for posting this here....but since your attention is here

I am more concerened than ever with P/IQ than ever, after reading through all the tests and looking at real world results. I have actually gone back to alot of my HVX/EX/5d2 footage over the summer (I shot 29 weddings this summer!)....and have combed over tons of it to find the issues and learn how I can either shoot around the challenges or change cameras.

Are our trusty DVX/HVX cams prone to aliasing and moire or other noise issues (other than low light/high ISO shots)? Is it ONLY the new line of DSLRs that are prone because their LPF is designed for still photography?

Also, how in hell do all these companies get away with claiming 1080 lines of resolution when clearly they're able to resolve less than 700 lines? (720p maybe?)....this also includes the HVX/EX1 (I know the EX1 is in the 900's but not quite 1080, right?)

I have since gone back and re-read your HVX book and watched your DVDs....this time with my wife (my new assistant)....and I definitely could use the refresher course (I bought my 200a 16 months ago on release at Specc)...very enlightening. Just don't remember any mention of aliasing on those cameras.

Don't really know where I'm going with this, with the exception of a thank-you for the article and the question on whether or not we have these noise issues to deal with on our camcorders or not? Seems like these are complimentary kits....not one or the other

J

 

[Barry_Green]

I am now terrified to shoot my HVX into any of these scenarios....are there moire/aliasing/line skipping issues with our HVX/EX setups....

The HVX definitely dips into the "aliasing" pool to bring its perceived sharpness up some. I don't think it's anywhere near the level that the DSLRs do, but I'd have to put it through the same kinds of tests.

I am aware of the rollin shutter issues on my Sony....but I am now very curious about moire.

Moire should probably not happen on the Sony, and I've never heard of it on the HVX, but it's perhaps because of the odd color banding the Canons do on the chart that makes moire more visible on them?

Also, how in hell do all these companies get away with claiming 1080 lines of resolution when clearly they're able to resolve less than 700 lines? (720p maybe?)....this also includes the HVX/EX1 (I know the EX1 is in the 900's but not quite 1080, right?)

They're not claiming lines of resolution, they're claiming a recording format. It records in and is compliant with the broadcast standard for 1080i or 1080p, therefore they call them 1080 cameras. The actual resolved detail is not implied or conveyed by saying what the recording format is; you can have one 1080 camera that's much sharper than another 1080 camera, and they're both 1080 cameras...

Just don't remember any mention of aliasing on those cameras.

We've known that the HVX uses spatial offset and has some aliasing, but so does most everything else (or at least, at the time we tested them, they did. We brought it up back in the days of the great six-camera shootout written up on DV magazine, for example; the HVX and the Sony Z1 showed some aliasing. It was never a big deal back then; the HVX doesn't create big swaths of moire on buildings or ruin lace or fine detail fabric shots, etc...

It's there, but not like in the DSLRs. The DSLRs are pretty much relying on aliased detail to generate pretty much all the "high def" of their HD pictures. If you stripped out all the aliasing, you'd end up with an image that's not any sharper than an HVX, probably less so.

 

[commanderspike]

I think the best cinema is a happy marriage of technology and art. Film makers should have the tools at their disposal to realise their vision and they need to understand the craft before subverting it. It isn't 'all' strictly about story or content. You need both sides of the craft to meld. HD-SLRs will make a wider audience realise their visions, due to their omnipresence and relative low cost. Of course many of these visions won't be worth realising and many people stumble through a creative desert until they find an oasis - a voice that works for them. Everybody does this. It's a heck of a journey.

Some people get their earlier than others. Look at Kate Abad's 16mm work on Vimeo. It's great.

The thing with limitations on technology is that it does make you more creative. It pulls you our of your comfort zone and makes you think in ways you wouldn't normally do. So in that sense, having limited means of realising your vision can actually make the vision more authentic and true.

Some may say that the HD-SLR limitations tend to be bugs which cause distracting artefacts in the image and that this is not quite like having to use lights creatively because your camera is rubbish in low light (for example). So how is a 'bug' like moire good for creativity? Well, it might cause you to avoid shooting brick walls in the background, so you move the camera to a new location - and hey, maybe when you do this you stumble upon a great new angle which you wouldn't have tried otherwise. Kubrick said he often didn't know exactly what he wanted at first, but always with certainty knew what he liked when he saw it.

Or maybe you give your movie a painterly smooth texture using diffusion filters and this becomes your stock in trade style? Even the smallest limitation of technology can be a trigger for something much bigger.

The best video I did at university was when the tutor wrote a strict set of 10 rules on an A4 sheet of paper, handed it me and said... "See what you can come up with". Sometimes too much freedom can be like a massive featureless desert. You need a framework, some triggers, a set of imperfect building blocks to play with. In DSLRs we have just that.

 

[Rakesh Jacob]

Look at Kate Abad's 16mm work on Vimeo. It's great.

Do you mean Karen Abad?

 

[commanderspike]

Do you mean Karen Abad?

Yep. For some reason, mind said Karen and fingers typed Kate. Kate's a nicer name though :happy: