Is the 7D the better 5D for filmmakers?
- Thread starter benn
- Start date
ydgmdlu
Veteran
I don't have any historical information, but I would speculate that it was a whole different situation.
1. 18 fps was considered about the minimum frame rate required to make a sequence of photographs look like motion. In other words, it was just crossing the "acceptable jerkiness" threshold. Hand-drawn animation has been done with as little as 12 fps, but animation is inherently "unreal," which makes the jerkiness less distracting, I suppose. But I don't think that anyone ever thought that 18 fps looked "good." It was merely acceptable because it was the best that the technology could offer at the time.
2. 24 fps was introduced at the same time as sound (for what reason, I don't remember), but it was considered the minimum frame rate to make action look "smooth." Nobody ever thought that it reproduced real life motion very well, but again, it was merely acceptable because it was the best that the technology could offer at the time. I would bet that everybody thought that it looked better, so I don't think that there were any complaints, especially since there was also the novelty of sound that became very popular.
3. 24 fps became the established standard, and almost every movie used it for several decades. People got used to it as the way that movies were supposed to look, and they associated it with the heightened drama, stylistic flourish, and romantic "unrealism" of the world of movies, as opposed to real life.
4. 30 fps was popularized by video. 30 fps was determined to be the minimum frame rate for rendering lifelike motion. These two things presented several problems. First, video has never looked as good as film, especially in the beginning, when it looked distinctively flat, harsh, cold, and sterile. Video was also commonly used for TV news, documentaries, and home movies. Video and 30 fps thus became associated with each other and both came to represent almost everything that movies aren't supposed to be. They were "too real."
5. So it's not simply that 30 fps is "too smooth." It's that it's too lifelike and associated with plain old video. So I think that 24 fps represents a sweet spot, smooth enough to look good, yet not smooth enough to look too real and video-like.
ydgmdlu
Veteran
That's fair enough, but what remains a general truism is that digital cinematography sees in the dark a lot better than film cinematography does. The 5D's image (and probably the 7D's) stays reasonably clean at ISO 1600 or 3200. Only a small number of motion picture film stocks are made for ISO 500, which means that most film is shot at ISO 400 or less. That's a two-stop difference, at least.
And, as I said earlier, pushing a slower film to ISO 1600 will result in an image that would ordinarily be considered inferior to 1600-rated film. Push processing results in distorted colors, increased grain, and decreased resolution. That might be the look that's desired for a particular production, but the point is comparing like to like. So you have to compare the ISO 400 film image to the ISO 1600 digital image. You won't get far by comparing the distorted look of push-processed film with the still-consistent look of high-ISO digital cinematography.
As I recal (Perhaps imperfectly) the 24 fps was an easily derived speed from induction motors running at the US mains frequency of 60 Hz, there was nothing "magical" about it, it just happened. The same with 60i > 30P US TV frequency, and why everyone else who uses 50 Hz mains has 50i > 25P, nothing special, artistic or "magical" it just is.
As for push proscessing, with rare and marginal cases, you aren't increasing the film speed, just under-exposing and over-developing, with most of the tones falling on the toe of teh H&D curve. Contrast will also generaly increase.
Dave
As for push proscessing, with rare and marginal cases, you aren't increasing the film speed, just under-exposing and over-developing, with most of the tones falling on the toe of teh H&D curve. Contrast will also generaly increase.
Dave
commanderspike
Carbonite Member
I heard 24p came about due to audio sync issues. Anyway all that is of course a long time ago.
Display technology is moving on. 24p won't last long into the 3D era.
For a 2D video on a LCD screen or digital projector however, the motion of 24p has 'something' about it which is very difficult to put your finger on.
Yes 30p does look a little too smooth, as does 60p.
But at least it's progressive scan and can be slowed down to 24p simply by dropping the odd frame. I don't see an issue with that really, although the technical discussion on that can run to reams of pages!! Is it really all that important?
Anyway the guy who shot the promo video Rivere for the 5D says 24p is 100% certain to appear in the next firmware update. I'd rather have full frame than APS-C sized sensor for cinema any day.
Display technology is moving on. 24p won't last long into the 3D era.
For a 2D video on a LCD screen or digital projector however, the motion of 24p has 'something' about it which is very difficult to put your finger on.
Yes 30p does look a little too smooth, as does 60p.
But at least it's progressive scan and can be slowed down to 24p simply by dropping the odd frame. I don't see an issue with that really, although the technical discussion on that can run to reams of pages!! Is it really all that important?
Anyway the guy who shot the promo video Rivere for the 5D says 24p is 100% certain to appear in the next firmware update. I'd rather have full frame than APS-C sized sensor for cinema any day.
Ian-T
Veteran
I have not seen the movie but watched the previews. 24p is not the issue with that movie. Michael Mann, as he does in his other movies, likes to drop the shutter speed down to 1/24 a second so as to squeeze more light into the camera. He actually likes the “video-like look.” Using a video camera in this way screams ‘video” because movie cameras can not do this. When one starts using a video camera outside the realms of a film camera (as in this case)….then I would expect it to scream “This is Video.” If you watch some of the other movies (not by Mann) that uses this same camera then it’s like night and day (no pun intended).
Buck Forester
Well-known member
I could be wrong, but don't you mean video and "60i" became associated with each other? I think of the cheesy home video or even hyper real news stuff as 60i. To me I can see a larger difference between recording in 30p and 60i than I can between 24p and 30p, in most situations. There are situations (faster pans, etc.) when 24p is clearly showing its limitations. Sometimes the world of subjectivity is not easily discussed and explained.
In the still film world we would go round and round in discussions based on film stock. Some people stayed forever true to the more 'realistic' emulsions and when saturated landscape film, such as Velvia 50 came out, they cried foul. And the whole digital/film debate was huge during the still camera transition from film to digital. As for me personally, I prefer film, always have, but for flicks there's no way I could ever afford to buy a decent 35mm camera, much less shoot with one. I'm a prolific shooter.
commanderspike
Carbonite Member
If you're using a cine lens then yes. But we're mostly not. We're using 35mm SLR lenses - that's the whole attraction of the video DSLR format.
Put simply, full frame exploits my 35mm SLR lenses better than any other format, and to shoot a movie like a 35mm SLR is the way to go. No crop factor. Use all of the Zeiss goodness :grin:
I also figured that since most multi-element lenses are sharpest around F8-F11 you could get cine (S35mm) style DOF at F11 on a full frame sensor, but at the same aperture on a 7D you would get deeper DOF and it wouldn't look as good. So you'd have to open up the lens and sacrifice sharpness. I am also concerned that the smaller APS-C sensor gives up too much low light performance versus the 5D. Plus another thing is that the 5D is waaaay better for still photography because of it's ISO performance and full frame sensor.
ydgmdlu
Veteran
Yes, but let's not argue about semantics. I was talking about 30 fps, not necessarily 30p, because 60i is still 30 fps, in a sense. NTSC 60i is commonly referred to as 29.97 fps. And to be even more precise, 60i is never actually 60i; it's really 59.94i.
Really? I just can't imagine it myself... 30p is a lot closer to 60i than 24p is to 30p. Perhaps the 30p footage that you saw was shot, lit, and composed differently than your typical 60i?
ydgmdlu
Veteran
So it's a usability issue for you, rather than an aesthetic one? Few productions have an occasion to use a lens wider than 20mm. When you use 28mm and wider lenses on FF, you're getting an FOV that's wider than what's found in the overwhelming majority of movies. Furthermore, in using longer focal lengths to match FOV, your images will still end up looking different because they will be flatter than 35mm film productions, the consequence of using the longer focal lengths.
One of the upsides of a crop sensor that you failed to mention is that since lenses are sharpest and brightest in the center region, you'd never have to worry about vignetting and edge softness when you use your full frame lenses. You're always using the best part of your lenses.
I've heard that lenses are sharpest around F5.6, give or take a stop. But none of the DSLRs can even resolve to the full potential of 1080p, so it's not like the small differences in sharpness between, say, F2.8 and F5.6 can be seen on video anyway. The difference in DOF between full frame and APS-C is about two stops. Most features are shot between T2.8 and T5.6.
Here we arrive at the fallacy that squig loves to mention. First of all, informal testing on pre-production units, as well as guesstimates based on the specs, indicate that the low-light performance difference between the two is only about one stop. If you have to stop-down the lens by two stops in order to match DOF with 35mm motion picture film, then your 5D will actually perform worse than the 7D.
No argument here.
ydgmdlu
Veteran
It's not just the 360-degree shutter. He also doesn't seem to care one bit about shallow DOF, and he doesn't light his movies the way that movies are supposed to be lit.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Linking to my other post, because it's extraordinarily relevant here -- but as far as Canon's concerned, the 5D isn't for filmmakers. The 7D, and future products, are more appropriate for that market. Look at this other post for a summary of what Canon has to say to filmmakers about the 5D Mark II: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1752614&postcount=9
30p and 30i are two totally different animals. This is not semantics, these are different formats, and they look differently. To me 30p is pretty much the same as 24p/25p, only smoother.
Barry_Green
Moderator
30p has more in common with 24p than it does with 60i, definitely.
commanderspike
Carbonite Member
Surely whatever Canon produce when the bring a refined version of the large format CMOS sensor to their professional video cameras will be where they're investing and concentrating the most effort with regards filmmakers.
Why waste effort making a photographer's camera behave more like a video camera. Neither the 5D and 7D are as good a hybrids as the GH1 is. Yeah, so Canon listened and put 24p in there, and a few video modes but it's still a APS-C sensor DSLR with a video / stills switch on the back.
It isn't a progressive none-mirror box full time live view camera like video cameras or the GH1 and the concessions to filmmakers are tiny.
Yeah it's an exciting camera for filmmakers, sure it is. But the 5D is just as exciting for the reasons I went into in the other thread RE: Zeiss and full frame.
I've been confused on which camera to get. I'm surprised to see you say the GH1 is a better hybrid then the 7D or the 5D Mark II with the firmware upgrades. The mud issues on 1080p scares me away. What makes the GH1 better for filmmaking? BTW, I 'm not sure what you mean when you say it's still a "APS-C sensor". Is that a bad thing for video?
Barry_Green
Moderator
APS-C means that the sensor size is basically identical to 35mm movie film, which means that you'll get the same field of view and depth of field as 35mm movie film.
commanderspike
Carbonite Member
I didn't say the GH1 was better for film making. Sorry I should be clear. Better 'hybrid' means I think it is a better integrated video camera into a stills camera. The Canons usability as video cameras are not yet up there with the Panasonic.