Dublin's People: Phil's first 1080p24 short from the 7D

Well the EX1 is not skipping lines, so in hi detail textures and slim lines the EX1 will be superior.

And I agree for everything else, the DoF look and quality of this improved H.264 bit-rate seems to be right up there with the EX series and somehow more inspiring.
 
JamesBenet said:
Well the EX1 is not skipping lines, so in hi detail textures and slim lines the EX1 will be superior.

And I agree for everything else, the DoF look and quality of this improved H.264 bit-rate seems to be right up there with the EX series and somehow more inspiring.
Click to expand...
Yes, the aliasing and the rolling shutter are the only major technical flaws that can be seen in the footage, and they are fairly minor anyway, but I think that in all other ways, the 7D should be considered technically superior.
 
JamesBenet said:
Well the EX1 is not skipping lines
Click to expand...
Is the 7D? Is the 5D? I mean, everyone repeats this like it's true, I know that it's treated as "common knowledge", but has this been confirmed anywhere? Has Canon confirmed that in video mode their sensors just skip whole rows and columns of pixels entirely?
 
Barry_Green said:
Is the 7D? Is the 5D? I mean, everyone repeats this like it's true, I know that it's treated as "common knowledge", but has this been confirmed anywhere? Has Canon confirmed that in video mode their sensors just skip whole rows and columns of pixels entirely?
Click to expand...

I think the first I heard of it was on Red forum. I thought I heard Jannard and some of his guys mention it. I don't know, I don't exactly take notes as I'm pouring through these forums. Someone needs to get to the bottom of that and ask Chuck Westfall or something.

If I can't see it and if as reported at the collision conference that both 35mm film and the 5DII were projected side by side and they were very close, I could care less. They can cry line skipping all day long, and I won't care. The proof is in what you can see. As Charter said when he showed 35mm and 5DII side by side: “This camera has no business looking this good…” We live in a majical time.

http://radraven.com/2009/09/05/collision-conference-day-2/
 
JamesBenet said:
Well the EX1 is not skipping lines, so in hi detail textures and slim lines the EX1 will be superior.

And I agree for everything else, the DoF look and quality of this improved H.264 bit-rate seems to be right up there with the EX series and somehow more inspiring.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a source that states whether this (line-skipping) occurs during this camera's de-bayering process... I, like some others have noticed this statement being being put out there as fact but I am yet to encounter a real source. Let's try to positively move these discussions forward with facts from viable sources and not rampart statements.


Sensors of various types have more pixels than what is actually used in the output as the wizardry required to get the video is different based on make and model for each manufacturer- some processes are disclosed while others are not. If the information is not available from a proper source then we shouldn't allow it to go on as fact- verify if this "line-skipping" is real and if it truly is the factor that is producing the aliasing or whatever artifacts utilizing a proper source.

cheers:beer:
 
Last edited:
While I have also not seen any authoritative source for the line-skipping claim, line-skipping does seem to be the best explanation for the results (i.e. artifacts) that we get. Other quick-and-dirty down-scaling algorithms don't produce quite the same artifacts.
 
philip bloom said:
35mm on the 7d is the ideal base lens. Ideally f1.4 if you can but f2 would be ok as a starter...50mm is a great portrait lens for the 7d but shi*ty for wides!!
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the reply Philip!! :)

So, if you had to pick "an all rounder lens" (I can only afford one of these for the time being) between the EF 35mm f2.0 or the EF 50mm f1.4, you would go the 35mm, even though it's f2.0 (which I know is still fast)?

Is f2.0 enough for night shots (where the only lighting is street lights and moonlight)?

For your "Dublin People" video, what aperture where you using the most?

Again, sorry for the novice questions, I'm still learning! :) Thanks again :)
 
ydgmdlu said:
Yes, the aliasing and the rolling shutter are the only major technical flaws that can be seen in the footage, and they are fairly minor anyway, but I think that in all other ways, the 7D should be considered technically superior.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any rolling shutter? Can you please tell me the minutes:seconds mark where you saw them? Thanks!
 
I wasn't talking about anything in Philip's work. I was speaking generally. What I'm saying is that, as far as the image is concerned, the only areas in which the 7D is demonstrably inferior to the EX1 is aliasing and rolling shutter. Resolution is kind of a question mark. But in everything else, I think that the 7D is superior.
 
Jean Dantes said:
Is f2.0 enough for night shots (where the only lighting is street lights and moonlight)?
Click to expand...
You can never really know without testing it yourself. But, in my experience, I would stick to F1.4 for night exteriors. If I had the 5D with me right now, I could do a test...
 
If at IBC Canon or anyone else (RED, for example) don't introduce a new video camera and a release date, I'll be preordering this one. And Zacuto will also be getting some business from me...
 
philip bloom said:
oh Kholi. Don't fret. I will do a shot for you with proper flat PP so you can take a look. sharpness all way down, saturation down 2 notches, contrast all way down and highlight tone priority enabled.
Click to expand...

There's been some discussion over at cinema 5D about highlight tone priority and increased noise, you might want to avoid it.
 
ydgmdlu said:
Why would you think that the EX1 is technically superior in terms of its image-acquisition capability?
Click to expand...



Well, I was not talking only about codec, which you seem to be, but about the image in a whole and all things that affect the image.

I mean, I've heard 48mbit H.264 is twice as efficient as HDV, I'm not sure it's better than XDCAM but even if the codec is better than XDCAM, there's more to an image than just the codec. The EX1 has an immense range of controls, multiple gamma curves, color matrix control etc. There's also a bunch of other things to consider in the image department alone. Just because Phill's video looks great doesn't mean the 7D would beat the EX1 for any shooting situation. Some of the questions that need to be asked are:








  • What is the dynamic range compares? The EX1 is around 10 stops.
  • How does the 48mbit H.264 holds through HEVAY color correction? Although in practice XDCAM shouldn’t be that good because it’s 4:2:0, it actually holds incredibly well. Its impressive how much you can manipulate and how much your can recover from the image. By the way, what’s the color space of the 7D codec? Isn’t H.264 much more compressed than XDCAM? It was created to be half the size of MPEG-2.
  • How the 7D does behaves for green screen shots? XDCAM produces great green screen footage and if you really need better quality you can capture straight out of the SDI from uncompressed. I’m sure this is not even an option with the 7D.
  • The 7D has no HD video out as far as I know. This is an important part of getting good images on a set.
  • How much control do you have over your image? Can you manipulate your gamma and knee? Or are you stuck with whatever the stock settings are, which will severally impact how your images are rendered and the final quality of your image? If it shot RAW, then all that would be pointless, but if a compressed format it is important to be able to manipulate your signal at acquisition time.
  • It has no zebras, no focus assistant, and no other features that helps perfecting the image.
On top of that, there are other things that affect the final image and or make them a bad choice for video, like, controlling exposure on these auto still lenses is a drag. You can get older manual lenses though.
Honestly, the form factor which is what most people complain about doesn’t bother me at all. On a tripod it doesn’t make a difference and handheld it’s not really that different from a Bolex. The lack of a swinging LCD does pose a problem though for making tripod shots easier, since there’s not swinging viewfinder.
The so called rolling shutter problems couldn’t matter less for me. I have shot hundreds of times with the EX1 and EX3 and it was never a problem, although I’m not sure if the 7D is worse in this department.

But when comparing images I think it’s important to also compare how easy it is to get good images.

Based on what I know about these DSLRs shooting in HD, I don’t think they can yet replace a serious camera like a EX1 or HVX200a yet. Since they are cheap, I would rather have a real video camera PLUS a 7D, but not replacing my video camera with the 7D. If you ever need uncompressed footage or ever need to shoot in more complex situations the 7D will most likely let you down. Shallow DOF is sex as hell, but sexiness is not all.

Feel free to correct me.
 
Sttratos said:
Well, I was not talking only about codec, which you seem to be, but about the image in a whole and all things that affect the image.

I mean, I've heard 48mbit H.264 is twice as efficient as HDV, I'm not sure it's better than XDCAM but even if the codec is better than XDCAM, there's more to an image than just the codec. The EX1 has an immense range of controls, multiple gamma curves, color matrix control etc. There's also a bunch of other things to consider in the image department alone. Just because Phill's video looks great doesn't mean the 7D would beat the EX1 for any shooting situation. Some of the questions that need to be asked are:








  • What is the dynamic range compares? The EX1 is around 10 stops.
  • How does the 48mbit H.264 holds through HEVAY color correction? Although in practice XDCAM shouldn’t be that good because it’s 4:2:0, it actually holds incredibly well. Its impressive how much you can manipulate and how much your can recover from the image. By the way, what’s the color space of the 7D codec? Isn’t H.264 much more compressed than XDCAM? It was created to be half the size of MPEG-2.
  • How the 7D does behaves for green screen shots? XDCAM produces great green screen footage and if you really need better quality you can capture straight out of the SDI from uncompressed. I’m sure this is not even an option with the 7D.
  • The 7D has no HD video out as far as I know. This is an important part of getting good images on a set.
  • How much control do you have over your image? Can you manipulate your gamma and knee? Or are you stuck with whatever the stock settings are, which will severally impact how your images are rendered and the final quality of your image? If it shot RAW, then all that would be pointless, but if a compressed format it is important to be able to manipulate your signal at acquisition time.
  • It has no zebras, no focus assistant, and no other features that helps perfecting the image.
On top of that, there are other things that affect the final image and or make them a bad choice for video, like, controlling exposure on these auto still lenses is a drag. You can get older manual lenses though.
Honestly, the form factor which is what most people complain about doesn’t bother me at all. On a tripod it doesn’t make a difference and handheld it’s not really that different from a Bolex. The lack of a swinging LCD does pose a problem though for making tripod shots easier, since there’s not swinging viewfinder.
The so called rolling shutter problems couldn’t matter less for me. I have shot hundreds of times with the EX1 and EX3 and it was never a problem, although I’m not sure if the 7D is worse in this department.

But when comparing images I think it’s important to also compare how easy it is to get good images.

Based on what I know about these DSLRs shooting in HD, I don’t think they can yet replace a serious camera like a EX1 or HVX200a yet. Since they are cheap, I would rather have a real video camera PLUS a 7D, but not replacing my video camera with the 7D. If you ever need uncompressed footage or ever need to shoot in more complex situations the 7D will most likely let you down. Shallow DOF is sex as hell, but sexiness is not all.

Feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about the codec. I was referring more to the hardware abilities. The way that the chips capture and downscale moving images is responsible for the rolling shutter and aliasing artifacts. You can't write new software/firmware to make those things go away.

The 7D is based on the 50D. DxOMark measured the 50D's dynamic range to be 11.4 stops. I don't know how the EX1's dynamic range was measured, nor do I know how dynamic range might differ between still and video modes. But that's a number for you.

The color space of the 7D is still 4:2:0. I don't know why you would think that either it or the video in general would be "more compressed." The level of compression is derived from the bitrate or the ratio between the compressed file size and the uncompressed file size. The 44 Mbps codec of the 7D is, technically speaking, LESS compressed than 35 Mbps XDCAM. Your idea that H.264 was created to be "half the size" of MPEG-2 is confused. H.264 is more EFFICIENT than MPEG-2, which means that, on paper, it does a much smarter job of throwing away redundant information for the compression process. None of that has anything to do with color space. 4:2:0 color space compression is the same for any codec. At least, that's my understanding. The 7D's codec could only be inferior to XDCAM if it was a really bad implementation of H.264. It's either the same as or better than the 5D's codec. And the 5D's codec has proven to be very good. Users of both the 5D and XDCAM have said that the 5D's codec is significantly better.

You know, Philip made the original video file available for download, and you can easily find raw 5D clips as well. So why not try working with the files and seeing for yourself how good the codec is?

Since the 7D presumably has the same or better codec as the 5D, you can estimate the green screen ability based on the tests that 5D users have done with their cameras. But I would imagine that every 4:2:0 codec has roughly the same capability, limited primarily by the codec's overall image compression efficiency.

Why is having HD video-out an "important part of getting good images on the set"? The 7D does standard-definition video-out while recording. That's good enough for critical focus and other checks using a decent monitor.

The gamma and knee and other image controls that you have in mind are primarily software effects. If you capture a flat, neutral image without over-sharpening or punchy contrast, then you have plenty of control over those things in post-production. The quality of the image is actually limited mostly by the ability of the sensor and image processing chip, which is what I've been trying to say all along. And that's why you shouldn't be surprised that the 7D footage looks as good as EX1 material. The hardware is simply better overall.

Lack of zebra stripes, focus assist, and other such features never limited the image quality of 35mm film. In fact, none of the things that you mentioned have much to do with the camera's ability to get good images; they only HELP you get good images. Do you think that the limitations of 35mm film technology make it a less capable image acquisition system? Are you surprised at the image quality of 35mm film, even though it's captured with far more difficulty than video on your EX1? I think that you simply have some slightly off-base ideas.
 
Last edited:
48 mbps MPEG 4 is a lot more than twice as efficient as HDV, unless you are refering to Sony and JVC's 35mbps HDV. Typical HDV of 19 mbps would be more comparable to 11 mbps MPEG 4.
 
As far as MP4's more efficient codec doesn't that matter more when compressing to smaller files (such as 9Mbps, 6Mbps etc.)? From what I always understood the higher you go, > 21 Mbps, the benifits of its efficiency starts to even out. What I mean is at a data rate of 48MBps for MP4 and HDV there would not be much of a difference. MP4 basically shines when you start compressing to smaller files. Or do I have this all wrong?

Technically I don't think you can call HDV or MP4(AVCHD) by those names anymore because at that data rate they have surpassed the limit of those categories. HDV only goes up to 25Mbps and AVCHD 24Mbps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top