Can this really have been shot with a 7D?

A

Adamsenoj

Well-known member
Can this film really have been shot with the 7D? Where is the moire? Why the wide shots look so sharp? Why the colors, skin tones and dynamic range look so good? This looks way better than the DSLR footage you normally see.
Somebody posted online that the director said it was shot with the 7D and cooke lenses. Anybody around know any additional information about it? I think it looks great! Download the original 1080p version and watch it in all its greatness.


If this was indeed shot with a 7D, then h.264 codec is better than we think and the moire and sharpness issue is way overplayed. Unless he nailed the look in camera, it held up really well.
 
Looks like DSLR footage to me, just might be that they shot for the look closer to in-camera and accented it with a strong colorist.

You can see the lack of real detail in most shots, and aliasing* all over the place if you actually look for it.



*AND I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE LOOKED FOR IT IF I WASN'T DIRECTED (passively) TO HUNT FOR IT.
 
If this was indeed shot with a 7D, then h.264 codec is better than we think and the moire and sharpness issue is way overplayed. Unless he nailed the look in camera, it held up really well.
Click to expand...

Yup, It's amazing, it only took one trailer to prove we all been imagining the moire, aliasing, and soft images. It couldn't possibly be that the Dp knew his gear and how to use it, what not to shoot, and at what distance. It's gotta be we have all been overplaying it.
 
maranfilms said:
Yup, It's amazing, it only took one trailer to prove we all been imagining the moire, aliasing, and soft images. It couldn't possibly be that the Dp knew his gear and how to use it, what not to shoot, and at what distance. It's gotta be we have all been overplaying it.
Click to expand...


I think you missed my sarcasm there.

maranfilms said:
, and at what distance.
Click to expand...

Mind elaborating?
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
Looks like DSLR footage to me, just might be that they shot for the look closer to in-camera and accented it with a strong colorist.

You can see the lack of real detail in most shots, and aliasing* all over the place if you actually look for it.



*AND I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE LOOKED FOR IT IF I WASN'T DIRECTED (passively) TO HUNT FOR IT.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Pixel hunting only happens on internet forums. Nobody looks for that stuff. I bet that if I hadn't said it was shot on a DSLR nobody would even think about aliasing, as you pointed out.

But I couldn't see the lack of detail in most shots. The wide crane shot of the street close to the end looked very sharp and so did most wide shots. What do you mean? Did you watch it in 1080p or on Vimeo?
But again I doubt any audience would be distracted by it. It looks more than sharp enough in 1080p. Honestly didn't look any less sharp than any run of the mill Hollywood movie on Blu-ray.

But did you see any moire? I know it's easy enough to avoid the patterns that cause it on actor's costumes and set pieces, but when it comes to outside shots sometimes it's hard to avoid in backgrounds. But I saw some potential moire that didn't moire.
 
Who cares? If it's a well told story nobody cares what it was shot on. Even a 7D can look good if you use it right. Move on and make something.
 
I really think my sarcasm in the original post was totally lost. I was very tongue in cheek when I wrote that. Because the GH2 guys act like the 7D is unusable. It's too soft and plagued with moire, they say. Then the FS100 guys go, it's too soft and H.264 is not good for production. RED guys go, it's not 4K and not RAW, nobody will want to watch it.:evil:

Really, could've fooled me. :laugh:
 
Adamsenoj said:
Because the GH2 guys act like the 7D is unusable. It's too soft and plagued with moire, they say.
Click to expand...

Did you watch it full screen on a 1080p display, or just in its little 640x360 window? I hate it when clients want my Canon DSLR over the GH2 because I feel like the quality suffers just because of the camera difference for those reasons.
 
It's even worse at 1080.

I don't think any audience member would care if they were into the content, it looks plenty good for the material.

If you're asking people who've seen DSLR material for years now, IMO, it's easy to see that it was some Canon DSLR. I suppose I would've guessed 5D first, though.
 
But the point is, it doesn't look soft, specially not like some people seem to claim when talking about the Canons. It also handled everything really nicely.
I highly doubt that showing that to anybody who isn't a pixel hunter will produce comments that it looks like video or was shot with a video camera. This is the point.

Also, I can't say I have seen considerably better footage from a FS100 or even F3, let alone GH2.
 
You could use a 35mm Adapter and still get the same result: anyone that isnt' a "pixel hunter" wouldn't care.

See: MONSTERS

If you're happy with the 7D then shoot with the 7D...
 
Sure, and you could use a F3 or C300 and still get the same result.

I don't have a 7D actually. :)

Monsters was a 35mm adapter? I thought it was straight EX1.
 
Adamsenoj said:
Sure, and you could use a F3 or C300 and still get the same result.
Click to expand...

If you don't know how to use either then yeah, you'd probably get the same result as a 7D. Pity. And if you used an HVX or EX1 without an adapter the right way I bet the audience wouldn't care either.

Not sure why people still think the audience's opinion matters when choosing the tool that's right for them.

Monsters was a 35mm adapter? I thought it was straight EX1.
Click to expand...

Letus Extreme and a 50/1.4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top