Are 7D owners amazingly talented or...

Rakesh Jacob

Rakesh Jacob

Veteran
Are 7D (or GH1 or 5DmkII or D90) owners amazingly talented or... are people just so stupid they can't tell our videos suck?

Here's the thing as far as I see it, majority of the population looks at videos made with DSLRS and are blown away, consitently. Is this mass hysteria? Or are these "severely flawed" "crippled" "sucky" cameras tapping into something important about the way HUMAN eyes work, the way HUMAN brains process visual information?

Is the right track "smoke and mirror" aesthetics or measurable specifications? Of course I want both. But since at this price point we have to choose right now, what do you want? You want your videos to impress your audience/clients or do you want to pull out charts and explain to them that while your videos might look unimpressive and un-compelling these charts clearly prove otherwise? And while any camera in the right hands can create amazing images, which ones have been doing it consistently over the past year? I'm actually watching wedding videos for their cinematography now, because these were the first guys to exploit this class of cameras given their need for higher end DSLRs.

And just incase this sounds like a "smoke and mirror" argument, remember the biggest "smoke and mirror" attribute is film itself at 24 frames per second. 30p, 50p and especially 60p provide way more temporal information. Hmmmm but our minds just aren't wired to appreciate 60p the way the numbers make it out to seem.

There are a slew of arguable points here especially about frame rates but in the end it's not about the amount or accuracy of information being recorded it's the aesthetic that matters to me more. I am just as stupid as my audience when it comes to watching videos. And all this talk about these cameras failing and sucking and putting me in danger of losing work... well only if there was a chart you could measure that on, the argument MIGHT stand a chance with me and the people who watch my videos.
 
Last edited:
If you're talking about the end audience, you have nothing to worry about. People usually don't even notice or care when 4:3 video is shown stretched out on a 16:9 screen. That's a distortion of the video by 33%, but they don't even seem to notice or care!

Our local Wilmington news stations broadcast standard-def uprezzed to high-def using the video equivalent of a lego set. I can't imagine anyone's ever seen more stairstepping than this, not even in a women's gym. It's absolutely hideous. But it airs.

Fact of the matter is, you said that you don't care about the accuracy, you care about the aesthetic, and if the aesthetic is pleasing to you, why even worry about anything else?

For those who want to know how a $1700 product can be outperforming a Red, I can point out to them how it most definitely is not, and point to those areas where the cameras will royally let you down. If you stay away from those scenarios, you shouldn't have a problem. If you embrace it for what it is, you should have no issues. If you embrace it as something that it isn't, well, that's where you might have problems, and it is my intention to try to point out what they can do and what they can't. If someone wants to stick their head in the ground and believe fervently that everything's perfect, that's their right -- but it doesn't change the simple observable fact of when the cams don't work. I'm not one for "ostrich-cam", I like to know. If people don't like to know, they shouldn't read my posts. There's an "ignore" button out there... :)
 
Furthermore, you make an excellent point -- 24fps is indeed smoke and mirrors. It is pretty lousy at accurately portraying motion. And by and large, we don't want it to be accurate (we have 60p for that); we want the larger-than-life transcendental effect of 24fps. We have learned what to do with it, we've learned that we can't just pan side to side, etc. We have to adjust our workflow to deal with the low frame rate's limitations. That's what I'm saying we'll have to do with the aliasing too.

Knowing what the facts are doesn't mean you have to change your preferences. It just means now you know.
 
What was that word you used? AWFUL! Good to know I'm using a brand new "AWFUL" camera that I wouldn't have even known about if it weren't for this very forum. I guess I'll have to try to make do with an "AWFUL" camera until something sharper comes along...
 
I read an article a year or so ago about James Cameron saying his ideal movie frame rate would be 48fps.
 
I agree with you Johnny that there are some really good videos coming out with all of these DSLRs. If done with some care. But that is true with any camera.

Just incase a few of you who never get over to Nikon threads anymore there is a really good D300s video with it strapped to a hang glider.
 
It's always been about the talent and not the tool, that's not why DVXuser exists, though.

It's just a good thing that now nobody has an excuse not to shoot stellar content. Just like RED will immediately expose shoddy craftstmanship, so will the 7D; thank goodness that the tide is almost over.
 
Johnny, I love your candor brotha, you say whats usually on my mind, I'm just to lazy to type it.
 
Their small size allows a big WOW factor for content that is difficult or impossible with a large camera like RED, a good example is this Nikon D300 hang glider video: http://gizmodo.com/5384915/video-ext...he-nikon-d300s

Vincent Laforet understood the pros and used them to the fullest for Reverie, awesome low light performance and mount it anywhere type cam, now people are getting off track trying to compete with cams costing 10x as much in conditions / situations they shouldn't be used in (IMO) or don't excel in.

If I were a GH1, 5D or 7D film maker shooting a small indie movie I'd have the whole movie take place at sunset or night to utilize the strengths.
 
I hope his site doesn't crash from too many hits like it did with the 5d video.

Guess I'll go read Barry's article while I wait.
 
Just to give you an idea as to what the "general" public thinks of new cameras like the 5D and 7D, I have already booked a dozen or more shoots with a local television station that I freelance for simply because of the "look" I am able to achieve with the 7D. What I mean by "look" is simply the shallow depth of field and detail I am able to produce with the 7D.

The General Manager, nor the Creative Services Director is aware of, or could care less of the moire', aliasing, less-than-HMC-40 sharpness that is the truth behind the 7D. The reason is because what I am able to do with the camera is produce something that looks like nothing else in the market and before these cameras came out, was only achievable with much more expensive cameras and budgets.

That is the reality from where I stand, and I'm not complaining about a single thing with this camera.
 
ChipG said:
I read an article a year or so ago about James Cameron saying his ideal movie frame rate would be 48fps.
Click to expand...

I think he got his wish via the HDTV set industry. The abominable frame interpolation modes on the 120+hz TV's have made it possible for everyone to video-ize a movie.

Good times. :)
 
Well its second canon with 24 and 25p i hope all new canon DSLR's will stay that way from now on,waiting for 1500D.
 
I think it is a little like the "progressive stutter problem". Moire? Antialiasing? Well, it is there, like the progressive stutter. But if you find ways to draw the viewers attention from it (like cinematographers did for decades with the stutter by following certain rules) nobody will notice unless they are pixelpeeping like us!

There are rules for video, like avoid white shirts when the talent has dark skin. There will also be rules for DSLR (until they fix them): avoid small lines/patterns etc.

The 7D users are maybe talented, because they are pros who fast identify the problem and find ways to avoid it.
 
I absolutely agree that these cameras have issues, 100%!!! All I would like to convey to people is that the positive attributes of these cameras FAR OUTWEIGH their limitations. When is the last time we have gotten consistently beautiful images out of a camera without a lot of effort or extra gear?
Barry, God bless him, sees these issues and wants to warn people about the dangers. I see the real world results and want to encourage people that the final outcome is absolutely, amazingly, good and even impressive. It does what I and many others want it to do.
YES I SEE THE WEAKNESSES in what I am shooting; more resolution would be great, and it's coming; aliasing is there, and it's gonna improve as the market moves forward, but the current cameras are capable of producing jaw droppingly beautiful images. And while "jaw droppingly beautiful" is subjective and aliasing and poor resolution are objective, how can I discount the visual appeal of what these cameras create?

The market is gonna move forward at an amazing pace and we are gonna see major improvements; 1) because of thoughtful and intelligent people like Barry who also have the clout to keep large companies on their toes and 2) because of all the endusers who produce amazing images that drive sales, create a huge demand and force companies to one up each other.

My final conclusion is that these cameras do not limit me, I find them to be incredibly empowering.
 
I think the weakness of the 7D (and other cameras aswell) is masked by highly compressed footage posted on the webb.

And at the same time the benefits of the 7D is easy detectable on webb videos. (shallow DOF, Low light etc)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top