El Director
Veteran
My last feature was shot with a T2i and it looked amazing projected at the theater. You have nothing to worry about
Canon 7D Footage on the Big Screen, Opinions Wanted
- Thread starter shorty15
- Start date
DavidBeier
Veteran
I can't speak for the 7D as I havn't seen my DSLR footage projected yet.
That said, I want to STRONGLY echo what Barry said. The fact that you didn't mention 35mm tells me you don't have a huge budget or a ton of resources. In those situations, you're going to be able to make footage from a pro or prosumer HD camera sing a lot better than you will 16mm. A big part of it is that most people on this level have learned the ins and outs of HD and have mastered its flexability. While a DP who has worked years with film and knows the best stocks may be able to make super 16mm look better, most modern filmmakers are going to get a lot more out of HD.
Once again, I can't speak specifically to how the 7D's compression looks when blown up but I've seen plenty of examples where EX1 footage shot by talented individuals has beaten the crap out of 16mm footage shot by those who thought shooting film would solve all their problems (I've also seen a ton of examples of this in the Red vs 35mm debate). Try doing some tests and perhaps if you don't like the 7D's h264 compression, consider an EX3, AF100, or F3.
It's not just image quality by the way. Think about all you can do with the money you save. Think about how that cash can be spent on production design, better lighting, better lenses, more professional crew members, ect. There's so much that goes into the visual aspect of a film beyond the camera body. Once again, I've seen so many examples where some of my peers decided to shoot on film feeling that would make their movie more "professional" only to fall short of others who shot on HD and used that money where it counted.
That said, I want to STRONGLY echo what Barry said. The fact that you didn't mention 35mm tells me you don't have a huge budget or a ton of resources. In those situations, you're going to be able to make footage from a pro or prosumer HD camera sing a lot better than you will 16mm. A big part of it is that most people on this level have learned the ins and outs of HD and have mastered its flexability. While a DP who has worked years with film and knows the best stocks may be able to make super 16mm look better, most modern filmmakers are going to get a lot more out of HD.
Once again, I can't speak specifically to how the 7D's compression looks when blown up but I've seen plenty of examples where EX1 footage shot by talented individuals has beaten the crap out of 16mm footage shot by those who thought shooting film would solve all their problems (I've also seen a ton of examples of this in the Red vs 35mm debate). Try doing some tests and perhaps if you don't like the 7D's h264 compression, consider an EX3, AF100, or F3.
It's not just image quality by the way. Think about all you can do with the money you save. Think about how that cash can be spent on production design, better lighting, better lenses, more professional crew members, ect. There's so much that goes into the visual aspect of a film beyond the camera body. Once again, I've seen so many examples where some of my peers decided to shoot on film feeling that would make their movie more "professional" only to fall short of others who shot on HD and used that money where it counted.
7d will be less of a pain to deal with shooting. There are so many factors between shooting film and 7d. Two totally different worlds. Just do a test and project up some test footage of the 7d. If you like it go for it. Just make sure you shoot good test not just one shot. Shoot latitude test, moire aliasing test, under expose, overexpose, pans, tilts, deep focus, shallow DOF, ect ect. Test test test, that's what the big boys do.
renegadewill
Well-known member
If you have the option of shooting film and finishing on film do it. I feel that it really depends on the scan you can afford. If you can afford a 2k scan (a good 1080p scan is great too), then super 16 is night and day better.
The new stocks that are out right now are amazing. 14 stops of latitude and accurate skintones make your film look like a film.
The new stocks that are out right now are amazing. 14 stops of latitude and accurate skintones make your film look like a film.
DavidBeier
Veteran
True, and I'll never underestimate the importance of lattitude. That said, it's no longer night and day. Look at the Great Camera Shoot Out Comparison. They measured Kodak at 14 stops and most DSLR's at 11 stops. 3 Stops is a bit deal but it's not the end of the world. A lot of that is also how much better film has gotten in order to compete with HD. A lot of great indie films shot on cheaper stocks int he 70s, 80s, and early 90s weren't getting 14 stops of dynamic range. They also probably weren't that sharp. If you know the limitations of DSLR lattitude and color space then you can work around them and produce some amazing results. Back to the Great Shootout, I was really impressed how close the 7D footage looked to the 35mm and Alexa footage in the lattitude tests. Honestly, had I not known what was what, I never would have been able to say, "this is HD and this is 35mm."
Once again, very true but more so with DSLRs since they are using the H264 compression. RAW, DVCPro, and the Alexa code all give more than enough info, IMO, to properly push your footage in whatever way most filmmakers need. I do get annoyed with high compression but it just means you need to plan to deal with it and try to get things closer to how you want in camera. It is a limitation but it's one (like dynamic range) that a skilled filmmaker can work around.
I think of these digital limitations as similar to shooting on film but not having the best lenses or supporting gear. Maybe you're shooting a Super 16mm project but unfortunatly, all you have access to is an 18-135mm zoom lens at F3.5/5.6. And perhaps you also can't afford a lot of lights so you're going to have to use a very high speed film stock which will add grain and limit your lattitude. Such a scenario would offer you a lot of the same limitations that you find in shooting digital yet indie filmmakers for years have shot in these same kind of conditions. If they didn't, we wouldn't have films like El Mariache or Half Nelson.
As I said before, I think if you're in a position to really pull out all the stops and push Super 16mm to its full potential, then it will end up looking better than some of the affordable HD cameras. But if you're able to afford doing Super 16mm to its full potential, then you can probably afford to rent a Red One which I think will blow Super 16mm out of the water in most cases.
I think most filmmakers debating between Super 16 and lower end HD (DSLRs, AF100, EX3, ect...) are not at that budget/expertise where they can get the most out of Super 16. Rather, they are more on the level of a production like El Mariache or Half Nelson and, in those cases, I think such productions will get more out of HD, espcially if they use the money they save on filmstock/processing and put it towards production design, lighting, ect.
renegadewill
Well-known member
I agree with draven4 big time, but there is something to be said about how you work differently when you shoot film. I know that I was far more prepared when I shot film and I just brought a little magic to the set. Digital for me atleast doesn't have the same magic. I know this is complete nonsense and I will more than happily shoot video forever. If you really have the opportunity to shoot film and finish on film do it.