Canon 7D vs HPX500

Kholi said:
.

Has this whole DOF thing rubbed me the wrong way? Yes.
Click to expand...

I agree. In film I've spent my life trying to keep more things in focus. It's never been much trouble creating less DOF. Just move closer to you subject and focus on it. Everything else will be as soft as you want. This is nothing new.
 
But film on deep focus looks like film , 7D with deep focus doesnt look like film,looks like video cam with 24p.
Anyway DOF is very new for amateur film makers, before RED how you could afford DOF shots ,film is expensive, you could use 35mm adapter but they became "famous" somewhere in 2004 or something.
If i would have a chance i could shoot on film with deep focus without problem cause film always looks like film because of blur/movement of objects onscreen ,on RED or 7D its harder to make it "filmlike".
 
bwwd said:
But film on deep focus looks like film , 7D with deep focus doesnt look like film,looks like video cam with 24p.
Anyway DOF is very new for amateur film makers, before RED how you could afford DOF shots ,film is expensive, you could use 35mm adapter but they became "famous" somewhere in 2004 or something.
If i would have a chance i could shoot on film with deep focus without problem cause film always looks like film because of blur/movement of objects onscreen ,on RED or 7D its harder to make it "filmlike".
Click to expand...

It's not a very hard concept to grasp: people who shoot film generally have a great budget for everything else. What you're talking about isn't a "Film look" it's a "Cinematic Look". If you think "film" automatically means "cinematic" then you're sorely mistaken. Just go and watch some student material shot on film.

Generally, video looks "CHEAP" because it IS cheap. People can't afford or just don't care to do what they're supposed to. There are PLENTY of Digital Feature Films that prove this.

It has very little to do with Film outside of Dynamic Range and natural grain, sure DOF as well. It's all production value and talent.
 
IvE seen some amateur stuff /short films shot on film and it looks good, OK looks decent and not video like at all,there is a difference when you put 35mm cam and 7d with 50mm lens and focus both on infinity and you put a dog running in front of them , you will see which one is film and which one is 7d because movement from film cam would remind you of movement from motion pictures,even if shutter on 7d would be 1/50 or 1/45 its footage and movement of dog wouldnt remind you about motion pictures,you have to try harder to get this "effect".
Movement of objects shot on film looks like film and its big part of cinematic look , im not talking about lights and sound of movie productions ,just random scene outside during daytime and no lights.
 
bwwd said:
IvE seen some amateur stuff /short films shot on film and it looks good, OK looks decent and not video like at all,there is a difference when you put 35mm cam and 7d with 50mm lens and focus both on infinity and you put a dog running in front of them , you will see which one is film and which one is 7d because movement from film cam would remind you of movement from motion pictures,even if shutter on 7d would be 1/50 or 1/45 its footage and movement of dog wouldnt remind you about motion pictures,you have to try harder to get this "effect".
Movement of objects shot on film looks like film and its big part of cinematic look , im not talking about lights and sound of movie productions ,just random scene outside during daytime and no lights.
Click to expand...
Not sure if I agree with this (I've seen 35mm film that looked like video...or home movies).. With deinterlaced footage maybe...but not necessarily progressively shot footage. But even with progressively shot footage one would tell if you started using shutter speeds that's impossible for film cameras to use...like for example night scenes in just about any Michael Mann movies. But movies shot like traditional films using a Red One for example always look film-like to me. I seen the examples you posted in another thread and I think they are similar to most videos I've seen (aside from the noise the 16mm footage showed.)

I agree that it would be harder to get that film like look with lesser video cameras....but I've shot stuff on the HV20 that looked just like it was shot on film. The trick there was lighting... And I'm talking about natural light (shooting on a slightly overcast day). When shot on an overcast day I was able to get the flattest looking image outdoors and in post everything just popped when color corrected. The obvious advantage of the film camera here is latitude...but when shot right I think the advantages of film in this area are moot once in post (IMO). I don't see any difference in motion. The only other thing would be resolution...but with a cam like the Red One I don't think there's much of a problem there (plus most folks won't be able to tell).
 
Do you think that universal soldier 3 trailer looks like film ? it was shot on RED ,imo one of the worst looking RED movies.But some red reels look amazing even on deep DOF.
 
bwwd said:
Anyway DOF is very new for amateur film makers
Click to expand...


Look, I hate to nitpick as much as the next guy, but since the introduction of these cheap cameras there has been an influx of new members still learning what everything means and we should make sure we use the correct terminology.

Depth of Field is not new. Shallow depth of field is something new to amateur film makers. Every lens has a mathematically calculable depth of field.
 
bwwd said:
Do you think that universal soldier 3 trailer looks like film ? it was shot on RED ,imo one of the worst looking RED movies.But some red reels look amazing even on deep DOF.
Click to expand...

CLICK
SUPERBAD
THE HANGOVER
BENJAMIN BUTTONS

and SO many more. Universal Soldier looks "Low Budget" because of the way they shot and nothing more. The rest of those look quite Cinematic.
 
Dont quite get those titles what are they suppose to show ? Hangover was shot on film ,click was shot on genesis and buton was shot partially on film and on cinealta.
I know that cam with big sensors and full manual shutters with 24p can look amazing ,but they need more work from DP than film cameras where you have 1/48 shutter as standard and it looks good from the stars and it looks like film if you will keep sane framing and wont treat them like your holiday camcorders.1/45 and 1/50 on 7D doesnt look like film ,you must work harder to make it look like film and then make it cinematic if you want to,bourne 3rd isnt cinematic and it looks like film,it looks good , not like a home video for a second.
You can have scenes in rain with bad light and bad weather and it still would look cinematic when shot on film and on infinity with 50mm,im sure it wouldnt on 7D in the same conditions.
Universal soldier 3 looks bad because DP didnt tested RED enough IMO to get most of it.
 
Last edited:
bwwd said:
Dont quite get those titles what are they suppose to show ? Hangover was shot on film ,click was shot on genesis and buton was shot partially on film and on cinealta.
I know that cam with big sensors and full manual shutters with 24p can look amazing ,but they need more work from DP than film cameras where you have 1/48 shutter as standard and it looks good from the stars and it looks like film if you will keep sane framing and wont treat them like your holiday camcorders.1/45 and 1/50 on 7D doesnt look like film ,you must work harder to make it look like film and then make it cinematic if you want to,bourne 3rd isnt cinematic and it looks like film,it looks good , not like a home video for a second.
You can have scenes in rain with bad light and bad weather and it still would look cinematic when shot on film and on infinity with 50mm,im sure it wouldnt on 7D in the same conditions.
Universal soldier 3 looks bad because DP didnt tested RED enough IMO to get most of it.
Click to expand...

Benjamin = VIPER

I give up, though. If you think Film automatically makes your stuff look cinematic then you should shoot film.
 
Last edited:
benjamin was shot on arri too , i dont think i want cinematic but i like look of the 35mm film which ive seen even on amateur productions because it looks like motion pictures "motionwise" , im not talking about lighting or acting , just technical stuff and how it looks like.
You dont have to make film look like film but you have to make 7D look like film if youre aiming for cinematic look.Cinematic looks were captured on film because video cams didnt existed ,now we can get cinematic look on video but we are trying to make it look like it was shot on film in terms of frame rate and shutter speed because motion of interlaced cams is terrible and even in progressive 24p it isnt really like film,you must have knowledge and be good DP to make video look cinematic,and IMO work harder than when shooting on film where you have shutter 24p and 180 degree shutter as standard and movement of your actors looks like motion picture because its the same medium which was used in motion pictures from years.
And 16mm film doesnt look like 35mm i know ,8mm doesnt look like it too.
Ive seen plenty of tv series shot in my country on 16mm film and i associate it with TV and cinematic look , and i know that its not shot on videocams like my shitty sony not used from years.
 
Love how off topic these threads can get.

Back to original... to qualify - Im selling a 500, but only due to the fact its a large investment not to be shooting on and I am now shooting on other peoples gear for awhile. I am going to get a 7d until the scarlet appears.

Now to my opinion of this test. How does this test even make sense? Theres no way on earth a 7D could undertake the tasks a 500 would be used for 90% of its lifecycle.
 
...second that Noel...commenting on the original thread post.

Thanks guys for posting the comparison. I found it very interesting.

My thoughts are exactly as someone earlier mentioned, seems to me the truth is in how they compare blown up to a 20+ ft screen. That's something I would just love to see. Perhaps someone has seen this..? Walking down that road a tad..I caught a blurb on here that Phillip Bloom demonstrated the 5DM2 on the LucasFilms 40ft screen with good results apparently as they did the '36-Stairs' trailer on the 5DM2.

I'm excited by this HD DSLR technology and for me personally, it feels similar to when I first discovered the DVX100's 24P capabilities..do ya remember this?..."Now, anyone can achieve the film-look for far less than previously imagined"...seems, 5D and 7D DSLR's are bringing similar HD claims with these larger single-chip setups....at the least it's something new and intriguing.

ProfD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top