Throw in any one of the Bourne films to check for that, they're mostly shot handheld with jittery camera, quick pans, and long lens. I'm pretty certain you're not gonna see that rubbery skew that you see from CMOS cameras.
Canon vs. RED
- Thread starter George D.
- Start date
- Status
Throw in any one of the Bourne films to check for that, they're mostly shot handheld with jittery camera, quick pans, and long lens. I'm pretty certain you're not gonna see that rubbery skew that you see from CMOS cameras.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I am not saying a film camera is going to be rubbery like current available CMOS sensors. I never said that and never tried to imply that. If you take a Nikon D90 and a Canon 7D and do a skew test on them, the D90 looks WAY more rubbery than the 7D. Take a Canon HV30 and do the same test compared to the 7D and the 7D looks way more rubbery.
Given that we know what 8.5ms looks like, and we know the new Epic is said to be a 5ms read/reset, and what I have read in multiple locations is that the spinning shutter takes 4ms to move across the frame front on real film cameras, that 5ms surely is going to be a lot closer to film than 8.5ms. How much better does it look? I'd really like to know.
I also think if someone could pull off a 4ms read/reset that we would be getting the same skew as a film camera (provided the 4ms is actually correct for film). The difference being the edge that moves down with a film camera is going to be not as hard as the digital edge with the way the light works on that edge of the actual physical shutter.
I'm seeing my only solution being to do the test myself.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
And I'll repeat that I disagree with this AGAIN because it is not true. BOTH methods cause a difference in exposure along the area being captured in time. Just because the current batch of CMOS sensors are SLOWER than the speed of the edge moving across a sensor doesn't mean they aren't doing the same thing essentially to the image. Obviously the difference in their speed and the optical characteristics of that edge cause differences in the results. Saying that they are not relative to one another is also misleading.
At some point the CMOS sensor read/reset will be fast enough that the perceptible difference will be negligent.
And regardless of ANY of this, DSLR sensors need to improve this characteristic!
Boy, maybe I need better glasses, but it doesn't look the same to me. The 7D looks much better than the footage from the GH1.
Sorry, if I'm not understanding something here, or if I'm stepping on anyone's toes, but that's the way "I" see it.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I am not comparing image quality, and the link I followed from the person who did the test said he did not try and match the footage for color or sharpness. What I was looking at was the skew in the image on the pan. Given both were locked to the same head, I checked a few different frames and compared the angle of the bars in the glass.
In all the checks, the skew distance was the same between both cameras. It's easy to take a snapshot and compare yourself.
Well, according to Jim Jannard those of us using HDSLRs in a professional capacity should be embarrassed.
I've never experienced anything like the turnaround Red has gone through, personally. I mean the sense in which the underdog now sounds a lot like the bully; I know Canon and Panasonic are the real corporate giants here, so why do I find myself 'rooting' for them over tiny upstart Red? Probably because of inflammatory rhetoric on the part of Red's employees and their most indoctrinated followers.
There was a time just a couple years ago where I had not one bad thing to say about that company, they were going to be the saviors of cinema, leveling the playing field so that never again would any filmmaker be limited by anything other than their own raw natural talent. Today... ouch.
Don't want to start a flamewar, but it's hard to know what to do with comments like those above by the man himself.
I've never experienced anything like the turnaround Red has gone through, personally. I mean the sense in which the underdog now sounds a lot like the bully; I know Canon and Panasonic are the real corporate giants here, so why do I find myself 'rooting' for them over tiny upstart Red? Probably because of inflammatory rhetoric on the part of Red's employees and their most indoctrinated followers.
There was a time just a couple years ago where I had not one bad thing to say about that company, they were going to be the saviors of cinema, leveling the playing field so that never again would any filmmaker be limited by anything other than their own raw natural talent. Today... ouch.
Don't want to start a flamewar, but it's hard to know what to do with comments like those above by the man himself.
Yep, arrogance (excessive pride and contempt of others) does nothing to engender good feelings from potential customers toward his company. I think statements like that just increase the resolve in DSLR shooters to prove him wrong.
It's fine to say that your camera produces a technically superior image to work with in post. No one would disagree with that, but to suggest that people should be embarrassed because they're not using your product is a little nauseating.
It's fine to say that your camera produces a technically superior image to work with in post. No one would disagree with that, but to suggest that people should be embarrassed because they're not using your product is a little nauseating.
Last edited:
I was reading a thread at reduser about how a lot of the Red guys are losing projects to the 5D's, some of them even said their clients like the look of the 5D better and cost was not the reason why.
Right ... its not simply about cost. Some people don't seem to understand that we prefer the image over many of the cameras out today.
Look at the House shoot... some people justified it by stating well... he wanted super shallow depth of field look and the small form factor and thats it.
What good are those attributes if the image looks like dogs*$t. Clearly they love the image and like every camera system b4 it and after, it will have some limitations.
I justify it by pointing out that Season 7, Episode 1 will not be shot on the 5D. Nor episode 2, or 3, or 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I'll be honest, I've already done about 8 jobs with my 7D and three of them paid, and well. Because of that work I've got three more jobs lined up that are paying even better. People like the results I get. Would I rather shoot on a Red One MX? Oh hell yes! But I cannot afford that camera which is over 10x the cost of my 7D for just the body. I realize the benefits to the image, without question, but financially I can work with my 7D and wait for something better. I don't like the form factor of the Red One. I don't like I cannot use my EOS lenses on it unless I void my warranty.
With my 7D I hope to save up for the Scarlet S35 as I am well aware of all the features, costs, and technical specifications. That said, if Canon comes out with something that fixes the biggest issues with the 7D, I'd be VERY VERY interested in staying with it. I love the form factor. I've shot with it enough know to know everything I like and dislike with the 7D.
I see a lot of frustration on the RED side from both long time users and red employees themselves. I see these same arguments in the audio business all the time. Why spend $20k for a ProTools system when you can buy an M-Audio interface for $250 and the *quality* is the same. (meaning I am not making that argument, just reiterating a similar response). Red's decision to put a camera into the lower cost (not quality) are has brought a lot of people into the Red radar that wouldn't otherwise have ever looked at their upcoming products. I see a lot of people trying to justify why they use a Red, and other people trying to justify why they use a Canon. The arrogance on all these forums seems to seethe out lately from a lot of people.
How many times are people going to cyclical argument about 'content is key' or 'quality is key'. A camera company can't help you with content, only you can, so why should they EVER discuss that in a technical discussion about their products? This is not limited to Red either, I read people make these same arguments about Panasonic, Sony, Canon, ARRI etc.
From a tool (and not creative aspect) perspective, the best tool is a reliable tool to give you results that are predictable or at least observable in the field. As a professional with money involved, results matter. The best story in the world is not going to be that great if shot at 320x240 and blown up to 4k. The point is, the final target is not some quantifiable object. It contains so many variables that each one is valid in a discussion on that particular point.
From a music standpoint again, people are fine with MP3 files with lesser quality. People stream Netflix with lesser quality. People watch cable TV which has HORRIBLE quality in my area. There is always a balance between cost and quality.
I did a shoot a few weeks ago with a person on a couch. I wasn't using an external monitor and when I got it onto the computer, the shot was so unusable it wasn't even funny. I have NEVER seen so much moire in my life. I'd like to not have to worry about that anymore as it has burned me over and over. I do have an external monitor, but in some cases, the shot looks so beautiful, I hate I cannot use it as I see it. I have to change angles, change DoF, etc.
My hope is that Canon makes a video camera for people that like the DSLR form factor. I like the size. I like the handle on the side. I like my hand on the lens.
But I will say this, it really annoys me when people say that all content off the DSLR are crap. They are clearly out of touch with the common person. It's not to say that getting those beautiful images aren't harder and have more restrictions, but they certainly look better than the copy of Psycho I watched last night!
It's clear people LIKE those images and are EXCITED by those images. I cannot deny that and I'd rather listen to the majority of people on what they like, then the minority of people who own a $20k camera. Until I can afford better, I feel very happy with my 7D.
With my 7D I hope to save up for the Scarlet S35 as I am well aware of all the features, costs, and technical specifications. That said, if Canon comes out with something that fixes the biggest issues with the 7D, I'd be VERY VERY interested in staying with it. I love the form factor. I've shot with it enough know to know everything I like and dislike with the 7D.
I see a lot of frustration on the RED side from both long time users and red employees themselves. I see these same arguments in the audio business all the time. Why spend $20k for a ProTools system when you can buy an M-Audio interface for $250 and the *quality* is the same. (meaning I am not making that argument, just reiterating a similar response). Red's decision to put a camera into the lower cost (not quality) are has brought a lot of people into the Red radar that wouldn't otherwise have ever looked at their upcoming products. I see a lot of people trying to justify why they use a Red, and other people trying to justify why they use a Canon. The arrogance on all these forums seems to seethe out lately from a lot of people.
How many times are people going to cyclical argument about 'content is key' or 'quality is key'. A camera company can't help you with content, only you can, so why should they EVER discuss that in a technical discussion about their products? This is not limited to Red either, I read people make these same arguments about Panasonic, Sony, Canon, ARRI etc.
From a tool (and not creative aspect) perspective, the best tool is a reliable tool to give you results that are predictable or at least observable in the field. As a professional with money involved, results matter. The best story in the world is not going to be that great if shot at 320x240 and blown up to 4k. The point is, the final target is not some quantifiable object. It contains so many variables that each one is valid in a discussion on that particular point.
From a music standpoint again, people are fine with MP3 files with lesser quality. People stream Netflix with lesser quality. People watch cable TV which has HORRIBLE quality in my area. There is always a balance between cost and quality.
I did a shoot a few weeks ago with a person on a couch. I wasn't using an external monitor and when I got it onto the computer, the shot was so unusable it wasn't even funny. I have NEVER seen so much moire in my life. I'd like to not have to worry about that anymore as it has burned me over and over. I do have an external monitor, but in some cases, the shot looks so beautiful, I hate I cannot use it as I see it. I have to change angles, change DoF, etc.
My hope is that Canon makes a video camera for people that like the DSLR form factor. I like the size. I like the handle on the side. I like my hand on the lens.
But I will say this, it really annoys me when people say that all content off the DSLR are crap. They are clearly out of touch with the common person. It's not to say that getting those beautiful images aren't harder and have more restrictions, but they certainly look better than the copy of Psycho I watched last night!
It's clear people LIKE those images and are EXCITED by those images. I cannot deny that and I'd rather listen to the majority of people on what they like, then the minority of people who own a $20k camera. Until I can afford better, I feel very happy with my 7D.Barry_Green
Moderator
Yeah, doesn't look like he's going to be endorsing the 5D anytime soon. Seems happy with his Reds, and the Epic is probably small enough to "get the shot" that others are using the 5D for. Nothing against the 5D, but that video sure makes him sound like he's going to be using Reds...
You missed my point... it would of never been used if the image quality was sub-standard. Furthermore, transitioning to the 5D on a full time basis would not be practical based on some of the issues that have been talked about in the past.
But can it be done.. absolutely and that is what the episode proved.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Tattersall made it pretty clear that he did think the image quality was up to snuff. The primary reasons to choose the 5D were logistical, but he wouldn't have made the choice to go with the 5D if the end product wouldn't have held up. But he said that his primary reasons for going with it were the tiny size (where a full-sized rig would have been highly impractical on that set) and the hyper-shallow DOF that he just couldn't get on film. Combine that with the image quality being "good enough" and it made it the right choice for that job.
I think no one is arguing that the 5D cannot be used in that manner, only not on that consistent basis or as the A-camera on certain productions.
Case in point: action film shot on the 7D had to use HVX for action scenes because of the CMOS wobble. In fact, I think more people forgive the moire/aliasing than the jello.
Case in point: action film shot on the 7D had to use HVX for action scenes because of the CMOS wobble. In fact, I think more people forgive the moire/aliasing than the jello.
- Status