How would a Canon T2i look on the big screens?

It'll look soft and out of focus slightly.

As seen in Black Swan, but it mixed alright with S16mm.

Camera doesn't much matter anymore unless you're dealing with VFX, Sprawling Landscapes, etc. If you're just telling a quick and dirty story, most cameras will look fine projected.
 
Kholi said:
It'll look soft and out of focus slightly.

As seen in Black Swan, but it mixed alright with S16mm.

Camera doesn't much matter anymore unless you're dealing with VFX, Sprawling Landscapes, etc. If you're just telling a quick and dirty story, most cameras will look fine projected.
Click to expand...

So you are basically saying that these Dslrs will not hold up well in those certain areas?
 
life4eva said:
So you are basically saying that these Dslrs will not hold up well in those certain areas?
Click to expand...

I believe what we are discussing is not unique to DSLRs. Film in general is the standard by which all others are judged. Digital Video can get close, including DSLR. But there will be situations where a difference can be noticed, and that's always been the case as far as I know.
 
The way I heard it once, 1080P on a DSLR is near 16mm film, maybe a little more or less. 16mm seems to be used most often for television shows, The Walking Dead was filmed on 16mm for instance - it probably could have been done with a DSLR, but at the end of the day, either source seems to cost just as much, and with 16mm, you don't have to worry about a single moire issue, and it also has a better latitude supposedly. And then with cinema films, they seem to usually step it up to 35mm, which seems to be what 4k is equal to.

So the big question is as long as you watch out for moire issues, is 1080P aka 16mm film an adequate source to project onto a major cinema screen? I'd personally trust it on a small indie screen - that's what both the Zacuto Shoot-Out and George Lucas's Ranch Reels seemed to be projected upon - but with the size of modern cinema screens, I'm just not sure. 16mm is simply double what 8mm is, and 8mm is for what, classroom and office projectors? Double that, and it seems that indie screens would be a safe bet. But with huge official big-city cinema screens? I'm just not sure. I wish I could see the results with my own eyes.

One thing that draws my attention, though, is with many film theaters, they show pristine looking local advertisements like for car lots, doctors, lawyers, ect ect, and these ads have to have been filmed on 1080p as there's no car lot that's gonna film a commercial with a Red or 35mm film - you can even tell that the commercials were filmed with DSLR's or old DVX's, yet, as long as the production is great, half of the 1080P commercials look pristine, especially for what many indie filmmakers dreaming to get their films distributed would settle for. The ratio is always 16:9 with these commercials as well, so it only adds to knowing what cameras they used. And again, it looks good enough for me.

But then again, it seems that tests show that DSLR's output a little less quality than the best of 1080P newscast-type cameras, so that's a factor to weigh in. Like said above, I'd simply expect it to look a bit blurry because of the resolution and quality issues, and then, you also have to watch out for how these cameras handle wide angle shots, the quality can quickly become very bad and almost unrecognizeable if too much area is covered. These cameras aren't always the best for establishing shots, head shots are more of the mentality that has to be used with them.
 
Last edited:
At some point, everyone needs to step back and go "whoa, this camera is $800 bucks, and it does that??!!" In certain situations it will look more than great on a big screen. Tron was filmed in 1080p on a F35 and looked wonderful on the big screen. And keep in mind that for DSLR's, People use them for photos 100 to 1, if not more, so video on DSLRs are just an afterthought but can still look great.

I think some people just expect too much from DSLRs. At thir pricepoint, they rock. They look great. There is a reason that there are $40k to $200k cameras out there being used and still being purchased. It's not that DPs haven't gotten the memo on DSLRs looking great, it's that DSLRs serve a certain purpose, in certain situations, but are not the end all tell all for anything. Why is nobody getting pissed off that their Sony or Canon Point and Shoot doesn't have full manual controls or isn't up to the quality of larger cameras? Because it's ridiculous, just like it's ridiculous for people to think that a T2i, 5dii or 7d should be up to par with the bigger league cameras. They serve a purpose and can look good, but don't expect it to be anything more than what it is.

I own a 5d by the way and am completely happy with it, although my end goal is not to make feature films.
 
Kit Hannah said:
At some point, everyone needs to step back and go "whoa, this camera is $800 bucks, and it does that??!!" In certain situations it will look more than great on a big screen. Tron was filmed in 1080p on a F35 and looked wonderful on the big screen. And keep in mind that for DSLR's, People use them for photos 100 to 1, if not more, so video on DSLRs are just an afterthought but can still look great.

I think some people just expect too much from DSLRs. At thir pricepoint, they rock. They look great. There is a reason that there are $40k to $200k cameras out there being used and still being purchased. It's not that DPs haven't gotten the memo on DSLRs looking great, it's that DSLRs serve a certain purpose, in certain situations, but are not the end all tell all for anything. Why is nobody getting pissed off that their Sony or Canon Point and Shoot doesn't have full manual controls or isn't up to the quality of larger cameras? Because it's ridiculous, just like it's ridiculous for people to think that a T2i, 5dii or 7d should be up to par with the bigger league cameras. They serve a purpose and can look good, but don't expect it to be anything more than what it is.

I own a 5d by the way and am completely happy with it, although my end goal is not to make feature films.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the premise behind what you are saying, I think you are downplaying these cameras a bit too much. The 7D is not that much cheaper than many entry level prosumer camcorders that support higher end features (XLR input, manual controls, etc), and many of those cameras have been used for content that appears on big screens (such as indie events, or local ads in the theater like Snapper123 mentioned). Its no RED or film cam, granted, but for most of us that isn't necessary for a great looking feature. Comparing it to the difference between a point-and-shoot and higher end still cam does not seem apt.
 
dishe said:
While I agree with the premise behind what you are saying, I think you are downplaying these cameras a bit too much. The 7D is not that much cheaper than many entry level prosumer camcorders that support higher end features (XLR input, manual controls, etc), and many of those cameras have been used for content that appears on big screens (such as indie events, or local ads in the theater like Snapper123 mentioned). Its no RED or film cam, granted, but for most of us that isn't necessary for a great looking feature. Comparing it to the difference between a point-and-shoot and higher end still cam does not seem apt.
Click to expand...

I think if you put almost any camera into a capable DPs hands, they can figure out a way for it to look good. I'm not doubting their abilities at all. I have seen what DSLR's look like on the big screen, many of times and they can look quite great. I'm not trying to downplay them at all, I just think people "expect" too much of them sometimes and want to believe they are everything and can do everything that the big boys can do, which they can't. If they could, there would never be any reason to use anything higher priced. Everything is subjective, but I think some people like to over-talk DSLRs to be something more than they are to make themselves feel good and have their purchased justified. I think they are great cameras, for the money. And especially for people like me who do both video and photos.
 
Kit Hannah said:
I think if you put almost any camera into a capable DPs hands, they can figure out a way for it to look good. I'm not doubting their abilities at all. I have seen what DSLR's look like on the big screen, many of times and they can look quite great. I'm not trying to downplay them at all, I just think people "expect" too much of them sometimes and want to believe they are everything and can do everything that the big boys can do, which they can't. If they could, there would never be any reason to use anything higher priced. Everything is subjective, but I think some people like to over-talk DSLRs to be something more than they are to make themselves feel good and have their purchased justified. I think they are great cameras, for the money. And especially for people like me who do both video and photos.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a certain degree, but I also believe in the power of reputation/hype versus actual capability.
Very often I see people buying equipment, computers, phones, cars, etc, based on the hype around them somehow being superior to an alternative. In many cases, there is some truth to the claim, but more often then not I revel in the gullibility of consumers. Never underestimate the power of good marketing and reputation for sales dominance.

My point is, I think that even if DSLR's were somehow BETTER than film (which they are most certainly not), there would still be big production houses who refuse to use them. Just because, well, its not film.

These cameras are marketed as stills that also do video. But many people are finding them to be extremely useful strictly for video. I don't listen to marketing. I listen to real world use.

I'm just sayin.
 
I dont know but i actually prefere to watch stuff on my laptop in HD than in cinema cause cinema screen isnt as sharp and detailed,at least where i was.
Enlarge your video frame on computer and you would get idea how it could look like with good quality projection, IMO it looks OK.
 
* I've surprised myself with a test where I was capable of seeing more detail at 2m from a 52" screen than at 1.25m from a 32" screen; I'm puzzled by that result, and I don't know what to take from it, but I think it means I can't compare "small screen, close" with "big screen, far"; no idea on the reason, though; this is the test, you may want to try it out yourselves:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/mpix/mpix2.html

* I'm pretty sure that screen at the George Lucas's Ranch is much better than what you're likely to find when you go to the movies
 
On Black Swan, they actually added grain to the 7D footage to make it blend better with the 16mm film the rest of the movie was shot in. Those shots were also taken at f/8 and ISO 1600. Presumably because they wanted wider depth of field to match the 16mm footage, and then needed light to expose correctly.

If I recall correctly, the digital projectors that show the advertisements before the movies are less than 1080p.

Avatar was shot in 1080p. Star Wars Episode 1 was shot digitally and projected at less than 1080p. Of course, those cameras are able to resolve every single pixel at 1080p, while the Canon DSLRs aren't quite there (see the resolution chart tests for details).

On a more practical note, it seems like most independent film festivals are not capable of playing back full 1080p with 5.1 surround sound anyway. I'd worry more about the projectors available at film festivals than I would about the camera at this point.
 
I think the best thing to for everyone to pick one of their own projects and go to your cinema and tell them "I'm interested in renting a preview spot for my commercial but i'd like to see it projected first to test the quality." and they probably would meet you at closing time to set something up. I don't see why not. Perfect opportunity to test things.

Do you have to output a video to something fancy to do this, though?
 
Yeah well i can tell you we projected standard def dvx100 films onto a giant sheet draped over a cliff... for an outdoor film festival - and they looked good enough to entertain our audience.
 
I've seen it projected. Looks great. Different from film. Black Swan is a bad example though, as they shot it really gritty. He used a 24mm lens stopped down to f8 at a high ISO. There was another thread on this.

Philip Bloom has done large screen projection at Skywalker Ranch with great results. Google it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top