Canon 7D - Need to pitch against HDV - Pro/Cons

K

kevin860

Member
Starting a 10 day production next month, consisting of mostly interviews mixed with b-roll of people interacting in a class room and with computers. I have to pitch to the producers why we should shoot it with my Canon 7D package vs. a Sony HDV package. Cost factors aside I need to come up with a Pro/Con list to help the Canon 7D get the job. After my initial pitch I am doing a proof of concept shoot to show the quality difference. Here is what I have so far:

Pro:
- Complete control of Depth of Field
- Wide range of available professional lens
- True 24 fps
- Image quality comparable to film and RED cameras at fraction of price
- Very large sensor – great for low light. Able to light scenes with less or lower powered lamps

Con:
- Dual sound record
- Max 12 min record time per clip – (due to 4GB Fat32 CF card limit)
- General ergonomics of camera
- No zoom
- No image stabilization

I would love to hear some more suggestions.
 
I have an FX1 and a 7D. My observations:

The 7D has better overall image quality, though in some areas it has flaws. On a recent shoot, I noticed that you have to be VERY careful with patterned lines causing moire. It sucks to see a rainbow pattern on a roll up garage door on an industrial complex, especially when you didn't catch it on the monitor to begin with.

The 7D's shallow depth of field is fantastic when needed, but it's not always needed. There are plenty of times where I'm pushing my aperture way down to get a deeper DOF.

7D @60fps is fantastic for slow motion, something the Sony can't do.

Autofocus on the FX1 is a nice feature. Constantly pulling focus with moving subjects can get tiresome when you are a one man operation and you need to be making sure you are getting the shot in an environment where you can't stop action and get another take.

7D has great low light capability WITH THE RIGHT LENSES.

It is easier to get adequate footage with the FX1. However, the 7D gives the ability to get BETTER footage if you know how to use it right.
 
were you looking solely at quality issues?

con: more difficult to edit with most software / setups (unless you using like edius 2.5 or cs5) - therefore extra time costs for your production workflow when encoding to digital intermediate formats; and perhaps added expense if you had to upgrade to newer software and hardware. HDV should be able to be processed on older software and hardware without much issue
 
If I were producing, it would come down to something very simple.

Tape vs Tapeless workflow. Ingest will be faster, on-set review will be faster, dailies will be faster. Less time = less money.

Add to that full raster format offers higher quality. Increased color information offers higher quality, increased compression quality offers higher quality.

Dual record sound is something you should be doing for any decent project anyway, so I consider that a wash. And frankly, there are very, VERY few instances I can think of where I've seen a continuous 12+ minute shot make it into anything. You'll be lucky to get 5 minutes of continuous roll that can all be used without cutting. 12 minutes is no different than bringing in 16mm or 35mm film. No image stabilization is down to the lens, so that's not necessarily a con either. No zoom, I consider that a pro, not a con.

The only drawback to shooting on the 7D might be in post when you have to get your footage into the editor, but honestly, you should be either using an intermmediate, or transcoding to an editing format anyway. So I don't see that as a big deal. Unless you plan on splicing tape together, tape ingest vs H.264 transcode is a wash for time anyway.

I can't think of any viable reason I'd shoot anything on HDV given another HD choice.
 
kevin860 said:
Starting a 10 day production next month, consisting of mostly interviews mixed with b-roll of people interacting in a class room and with computers. I have to pitch to the producers why we should shoot it with my Canon 7D package vs. a Sony HDV package. Cost factors aside I need to come up with a Pro/Con list to help the Canon 7D get the job. After my initial pitch I am doing a proof of concept shoot to show the quality difference. Here is what I have so far:

Pro:
- Complete control of Depth of Field
- Wide range of available professional lens
- True 24 fps
- Image quality comparable to film and RED cameras at fraction of price
- Very large sensor – great for low light. Able to light scenes with less or lower powered lamps

Con:
- Dual sound record
- Max 12 min record time per clip – (due to 4GB Fat32 CF card limit)
- General ergonomics of camera
- No zoom
- No image stabilization

I would love to hear some more suggestions.
Click to expand...

Underlined for flat out lie.
 
OK, I may have been to advantageous by saying " Image quality comparable to film and RED cameras at fraction of price". I take that back, I was basing that comment on the DSLR shoot out results that Zacuto has been doing. I will have to reword that one.

I am looking at quality and usability Pros/Cons. I need to sell shooting on the 7D to two producers who have 20+ years each experience in corporate video. The DSLR technology in totally new to them. I have been a videographer for 10 years and have recently put together a robust DSLR package.
 
Well, the question you really have to ask is: do you want the best for this project, or do you want them to rent your kit regardless if it's best for the project? Because from the sound of your post, it sounds like you're more concerned about you getting the rental, than about what's best for the project, right?

If these guys have been around for 20+ years, they'll see through any smokescreens, so why try to do anything other than lay out the absolute truth? 7D is cheap and it delivers a great shallow-DOF look for interviews, without needing a 35mm lens adapter. Plus it's tapeless, so no need for a deck or whatever in post. Downsides are that it's a still camera, so you won't have niceties like power zoom, you'll have to do double-system audio and sync'ing of the audio in post, etc. etc.

Let them decide what they're comfortable with, rather than trying to "sell" them on using something simply because it's what you happen to have.
 
I definitely want what is best for the project, because chances are I will not be charging a rental for this job, or a greatly reduced rate. I have been working with both producers for years, and their number one complaint when I shoot HDV with them is, the DOF is to great. Thought this would be a great job for the DSLR. I want to put al the facts out there and show off some test footage so they can make an informed decision.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, the question you really have to ask is: do you want the best for this project, or do you want them to rent your kit regardless if it's best for the project? Because from the sound of your post, it sounds like you're more concerned about you getting the rental, than about what's best for the project, right?

If these guys have been around for 20+ years, they'll see through any smokescreens, so why try to do anything other than lay out the absolute truth? 7D is cheap and it delivers a great shallow-DOF look for interviews, without needing a 35mm lens adapter. Plus it's tapeless, so no need for a deck or whatever in post. Downsides are that it's a still camera, so you won't have niceties like power zoom, you'll have to do double-system audio and sync'ing of the audio in post, etc. etc.

Let them decide what they're comfortable with, rather than trying to "sell" them on using something simply because it's what you happen to have.
Click to expand...
But there's nothing wrong with getting them to be more open-minded. Just don't be pushy.

The professional filmmaking world needed to be "sold" on digital acquisition options also. As a result, more cinematographers are now open to shooting digital cinema.
 
Sounds like the 7D is the right tool for that job then. The DOF is the main advantage it has over any conventional video camera, so if that's the complaint they have, then the 7D seems tailor-made for the solution to their problems. But yeah, show 'em footage. Not footage someone else has shot, but footage you have shot, so you can show them exactly what they'll be getting.

If I had to use a 7D instead of a conventional video camera for any specific job, the head shot interview would be the single most suitable. Provided you are aware of the time limitations (no more than 10 minute clips), and if the person is wearing glasses the aliasing can cause funkiness in the glasses rims. And you'll want to watch what they're wearing; fine textured patterns can cause moire.
 
ydgmdlu said:
But there's nothing wrong with getting them to be more open-minded. Just don't be pushy.

The professional filmmaking world needed to be "sold" on digital acquisition options also. As a result, more cinematographers are now open to shooting digital cinema.
Click to expand...
Did they need to be "sold" on it? Or did they need to know it was there, and let them decide whether it was appropriate for them?

I say show 'em the footage, tell them the advantages and the issues, and let them decide.
 
Barry_Green said:
Did they need to be "sold" on it? Or did they need to know it was there, and let them decide whether it was appropriate for them?
Click to expand...
My point was simply that some people have unfair biases against new or strange technologies. To be overly cautious and afraid of the new and unknown is a part of human nature, after all. Something could be the best option for someone, but that person could reject it simply out of an unfair bias against it. I think that the OP was just concerned about this.

I say show 'em the footage, tell them the advantages and the issues, and let them decide.
Click to expand...
No disagreement here. That's the only reasonable course, I say.
 
One of the producers is definitely interested in the DSLR technology. The other producer is definitely bringing some "unfair biases" to the table.
 
Agreed that people can have unrealistic biases against something new, definitely.

I've told this story a few times, but years ago I was doing a series of commercials for a regional college system, and the client was dead-set on shooting film. No problem, said I, but seeing as these are commercials for airing on local TV channels, have you considered the DVX100's 24p? He had not, and didn't really want to. "Fine with me, as I own film cameras and can definitely do it, I just think you could get more from your budget with the DVX." He asked how it could compete with film, so I showed him a commercial reel with 7 spots on it. After watching it, I said "two of those spots were 35mm, and the other five were from the DVX." He said "which ones?" and I said "see, that's the point."

We were doing a series of commercials for him. He decided to use the DVX for all but one, the "headline" spot, which he wanted film for. His budget went a lot further, he got better spots out of the process, and it was no sweat off my nose either way. And when he came back to do a second round of commercials, he didn't even ask about film, we shot them all on the DVX.

I guess what I take exception to is the idea that we have to "sell" or "convince" someone to try something. Why not just let them choose? Show them the tech, say "for $x you can have this, or for $y you can have that." If they've got biases, hey, they're allowed to. They're the client. They're the ones writing the checks, so they get to say if they want it done a certain way.
 
Barry_Green said:
I guess what I take exception to is the idea that we have to "sell" or "convince" someone to try something. Why not just let them choose? Show them the tech, say "for $x you can have this, or for $y you can have that." If they've got biases, hey, they're allowed to. They're the client. They're the ones writing the checks, so they get to say if they want it done a certain way.
Click to expand...
We're just splitting hairs on what we mean by "selling." You're reading a negative, cynical connotation into it. I don't, but I can understand your point. When I say "sell" or "selling," especially with the self-conscious quotation marks, I really just mean any little thing that might convince someone be more open toward options that were initially, and perhaps irrationally, refused. So your story fits exactly into what I was saying. :)
 
Right, I was just thrown I guess by the OP's stated desired outcome. He wanted a list of pros and cons, but wanted it all to add up to make sure that the 7D got the job. I think the presentation should be truly open, without a preconceived notion of what the outcome should be.
 
Show them footage from both. Shoot tests from both cameras if possible. Try to show the best and worst things that can happen with an image if possible.
 
i am gonna to setup a side by side comparison of a staged interview for the producers to look at. They will be able to switch the field monitor back and forth and see instant results.
 
Try showing comparison of different lighting setups and shots ranging from outdoor to indoor, high key to low key lighting. A simple setup will not be enough to show the range of each.

Also another quick and easy thing you can do is just show them the great work being done with the T2i and 7d from footage on youtube. There are plenty of films being posted from the smallest budget to full blown big budget commercial and music video shoots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top