Canon 7D killed my scarlet dreams!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kholi said:
And this is exactly why there is no substitute for hands-on-experience.

Even if you shot for a final look in-camera, the difference when comparing both is severely obvious. Almost saddening but then you remember that one costs a lot more, so it should be that much better.

Here's to hoping the 7D's quality is as good as the MKii's, though. If not, I don't know if I'll jump on another (h)DSLR that doesn't shoot a raw format. It's becomeing increasingly irritating to have to work around shortcomings versus just shooting RED and having to deal with the weight and storage.
Click to expand...

Apparently, this severe difference can only be seen in person on a computer monitor that is actually working with the footage because it is not discernable in any way in the footage I'm looking at on the net. If that's the case, I'll be fine for quite ahwile.

As I said before, I would dearly like to see both formats shot by pros and projected in a movie theatre. Don't know if I'll ever get that chance.
 
f64manray said:
Apparently, this severe difference can only be seen in person on a computer monitor that is actually working with the footage because it is not discernable in any way in the footage I'm looking at on the net. If that's the case, I'll be fine for quite ahwile.

As I said before, I would dearly like to see both formats shot by pros and projected in a movie theatre. Don't know if I'll ever get that chance.
Click to expand...

I can see the difference on my Panasonic Viera 46" 1080p plasma.

It is night and day.
 
And that's not even with raw footage. 1080 for 1080 on my 46" Samsung it is absolutely night and day. Although you can intercut them decently, you sure will notice the difference once you get out of vimeo boxes.

Maybe if you only plan to upload to vimeo or even go SD, then sure. Even then I think there would still be visible differences. Especially on wide shots.
 
Just my 2cents: just the difference between DVCProHD and H.264/AVCHD is staggaring in post production. You can push DVCProHD so much further because it is less compressed. Now I don't have any experience with Red files but I can only imagine it's gotta be brilliant to work with!

My issues have never been with Red products, they are revolutionary to say the least. I've only had issues with the way they treat product development as it pertains to thier customer and poential customer base. Which I wont rehash cause I'm not trying to bash.

And even in the end delivered videos online you can tell that the lattitude and color fidelity can not be touched by any other video system I have seen.
That's just my experience, yours may be different.
 
f64manray said:
Apparently, this severe difference can only be seen in person on a computer monitor that is actually working with the footage because it is not discernable in any way in the footage I'm looking at on the net. If that's the case, I'll be fine for quite ahwile.

As I said before, I would dearly like to see both formats shot by pros and projected in a movie theatre. Don't know if I'll ever get that chance.
Click to expand...

On the net... exactly the point... stating something as fact when you've only ever watched compressed web videos.

Just trying to bring a bit of balance to things. doesn't have to be a hardcore for or against one or the other or an all or nothing proposition.

Again, I thinlk these cams are different beasts at the end of the day. don't see much point in comparing them in most regards.
 
No matter what, the consumer wins. I have been a long time Avid editor and I have always said the best thing to happen to Avid was FCP. Competition is great for the industry.

These tech races are great. Everyone is desperately trying to out innovate and under price the other guy. It seems VDSLRs are out foxing Scarlet dreams, but I dare say had Jannard not lit the Scarlet fuse we might not have VDSLRs. Just my opinion.
To be fair RED does have raw and a working CINEMA camera where VDSLRS are still work arounds, rigs, and adaptations. VDSLR is the new 35mm adapter.


Rather than choosing sides let these guys kill each other on features and price and we reap the spoils of war. In 10 years in this business I can not remember the camera market moving this fast.

I don't care who wins. The longer the battle the more the innovation rises and the further the price falls.
 
jason.adams said:
No matter what, the consumer wins. Competition is great for the industry.

These tech races are great. Everyone is desperately trying to out innovate and under price the other guy. VDSLR is the new 35mm adapter.


Rather than choosing sides let these guys kill each other on features and price and we reap the spoils of war.

I don't care who wins. The longer the battle the more the innovation rises and the further the price falls.
Click to expand...


I'll drink to that.:beer:
 
Texanite said:
Amazingly enough, some of us have been shooting motion pictures on film for years and having to "make up our minds" on set
Click to expand...
as well as always thinking of what nets, filters, smoke, exposure and processing techniques to use in order to dirty down that overly sharp and clean 35mm image, which makes the current pixel and low noise hunt a but ridiculous. there's nothing wrong with a techincally better image, but you often have to degrade it significanly to make it look pleasing, and even an ntsc res image can look fantastic on the big screen.
 
Kholi said:
And that's not even with raw footage. 1080 for 1080 on my 46" Samsung it is absolutely night and day. Although you can intercut them decently, you sure will notice the difference once you get out of vimeo boxes.

Maybe if you only plan to upload to vimeo or even go SD, then sure. Even then I think there would still be visible differences. Especially on wide shots.
Click to expand...

But the difference must not be that great if Rodney Charter is filming 50% of his series Washington Field with several 5DIIs. I'm guessing this series will be broadcast in HD and the 5DII would not be used if it couldn't intercut with the other main cameras. Is it Red he's using for that?

This is happening outside the Vimeo box is it not? Also several music videos on MTV with the 5DII. It seems like I'm reading of more and more uses of the 5DII in professional applications outside of the Vimeo box.

Also the 5DII was being used on the set of Iron Man II. Not sure in what capacity.

It comes to mind that the award winning film "November" with Courtney Cox was filmed with a DVX100 and surely the 5DII's IQ is superior to that SD camera. No?

There is a point where that just clearing the bar is good enough and it appears that the 5DII is at least clearing the bar and can and is being used in a professional production capacity outside of the Vimeo box. At least industry DPs seem to be making that judgement.

It seems for every post that praises the Reds flexibility with its RAW codec, I read one that says it's a PITA.
 
f64manray said:
I like that as well. Their seems to be a more or less constant debate in the photo world about shooting JPEG vs RAW, and I usually reserve comment because I really don't want to insult anybody's skills, but there can be considerable amount of snobbery on the behalf of those that shoot RAW, and it's kind of amusing because I'm thinking, well if you were reeeeally good you would just shoot JPEG ..
Click to expand...

It is simple RAW has more dynamic range and does not bake in the colour temp

Now you can shoot 'jpg properly'

you can also learn to 'lean' on RAW, to shoot jpg style and just be lazy on your exposure

But you can also learn to shoot RAW properly - its called HDR high dynamic range,

Lets take still a hotel room, tungsten lit, with a sea view..

To get both the sea and the room exposed with jpg you are going to need to add fill light to control the dynamic range of the scene or maybe ND/Gell the windows or the lights, maybe both to control colour temp

OK that is 'proper traditional shooting', the sort of shooting that makes shooting the movies, or even hotel stills on chrome, super expensive and time consuming

Shooting RAW and carefully exposing, you can get both the inside and outside correctly exposed using differently processed RAW -> TIFF outputs from the same RAW file

You then mask the images together and get not only a correct exposure, correct colour balance across the daylight and tungsten sources and also a very natural form of light because you have not added any 'artificial' light

So the RAW shooter is saving rigging time (and cost) massively and also recording a scene in a manner pleasing to the eye

Which is surely the goal

Obvioulsly the RAW shooter is also queiing up for a PP nightmare to take such an approach for shooting stills let alon movies

I shoot a lot stills of hotels (for my sins) and have learned shooting RAW, also that computer perspective correction is better than a PC lens, and a comped sky is better than a graduated ND, and also that I must charge high for the implied PP time in 'shooting for RAW'

S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Shooting RAW and carefully exposing, you can get both the inside and outside correctly exposed using differently processed RAW -> TIFF outputs from the same RAW file

You then mask the images together and get not only a correct exposure, correct colour balance across the daylight and tungsten sources and also a very natural form of light because you have not added any 'artificial' light
Click to expand...


So... what's your plan when someone walks in front of the window? Roto?

What about for when half the face of your character is lit by the window and the other half by tungsten lights? What white balance do you use then?

Sounds to me like you're gonna explode your post budget cuz you're too lazy to gel a window with NDs.

-X
 
I would hope the Red would hold up better than the Canon 5d since its 6 times more expensive and that's just the body. The question you should be asking...is it worth the price difference. Red better act quickly because the camera wars are moving rapidly and I hope Nikon pulls a rabbit out a hat with the 700x and comes through with a full frame camera with all the bells and whistles.
 
In good hands, 5D and 7D are more than enough to make a movie for the big screen, that's a fact.
 
entry said:
In good hands, 5D and 7D are more than enough to make a movie for the big screen, that's a fact.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...with all the other technical and highly thoughtful posts in this thread yours was the most simple, true and on point. :beer:


...now people...choose your weapons.
 
well I didn't read all of the thread but what about 120fps ? the 7d is along way from that !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top