Is the EX1 Image Quality any better than the best DSLRs?

[DCunderground]

And still you're ignoring the fact that the DSLRs looked terrible compared to all other cameras shown. That's why people laughed. That's why I was stunned to see the horrible quality. This has nothing to do with egos, or anything to the like.

Bottom line, if the footage would've looked "GOOD" no one would have laughed. Do you understand the fact that had the footage looked GOOD instead of BAD we wouldn't be having this conversation right now? Because if you don't then you need to take a friggen ENGLISH class.

That's because they did stuff that would normally never be done.. like enlarging the footage to 4x it's size. Of course it's going to look bad. The 7D actually looked pretty good in the latitude test... although soft. I guarantee if you were shown 7D, Alexa footage, and 35mm in a theater at a normal viewing distance, you would have a hard time picking them apart.

 

[Madp]

I guarantee if you were shown 7D, Alexa footage, and 35mm in a theater at a normal viewing distance, you would have a hard time picking them apart.

First of all NO... The footage loooked bad with no magnification applied. You could easily tell the DSLRs apart.

Second of all.

A BIG LOL! If you think a feature shot on a 7D would look the same as an Alexa feature. That is the most ridiculous comment made here in a long time and there are quite a few knowledgeable users who will dismiss you as a big joke for displaying (lets just be nice and say) a huge lack of knowledge.

Hey admin, are we allowed to add quotes like the one above to our signature? That would be awesome!

 

[Chadfish]

...and uh... a little group of people known as cinematographers and directors. :cheesy:

Oh I don't know. I think pros, the guys that are making it happen, think it would be awesome to do it with an iPhone if they could. Less work! I guess you're more in the head of pros and know what they think... all of them....

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

I say again: This all feels pretty hyperbolic. Use the camera that gets you the shot you like, by why attempt to tarnish - across the board - a camera type that really only has in common with itself a shape. Yes, the early DSLRs had real problems. So did the first iterations of the RED. So in fact did the first small 3chip HD cameras. They've ALL moved the right direction. Lumping the GH2 in with the earlier Canons - just because it has a similar shape at the Canons - is just silly. It's not even a DSLR. It's a big, capable chip in a little body. What is the EPIC? A big, capable chip in a little body. What is the F3? A big, capable chip in a med size body. Let's stop this needless hatin.

 

[G.P.]

That's because they did stuff that would normally never be done.. like enlarging the footage to 4x it's size. Of course it's going to look bad. The 7D actually looked pretty good in the latitude test... although soft. I guarantee if you were shown 7D, Alexa footage, and 35mm in a theater at a normal viewing distance, you would have a hard time picking them apart.

I can assure you the 7D does not hold up well against high quality cameras like the Alexa or F3 or RED. I have personally DP'ed a feature film and we HAD to use a 7D for a shot... I did not want to use it but we had no choice because of gear problems with a crane. It took forever to get the shot to match with the quality of the F3, it was no where near close. The compression was horrible, and the softness screamed out dslr. it took a very long time in post to tweak the image just for it to be acceptable on a small screen, on the big screen its still makes me cringe when I see it. the 7D does not handle well for real feature work, specially against a professional camera like the Alexa or 35mm. And enlarging the footage to 4x is EXACTLY what you do with 1080p footage when projecting on a normal theater screen, thats why they call it a "blow up" most theaters are in the 4k DLP projector world now... when you show on a regular movie screen 1080p footage thats blowing it up to 4x to get it on the screen.

 

[maarek]

And enlarging the footage to 4x is EXACTLY what you do with 1080p footage when projecting on a normal theater screen, thats why they call it a "blow up" most theaters are in the 4k DLP projector world now...

No, most are still 2k. I've blown up alot of footage to the screen, HDV, DV, and DSLR material. If the story works all of them look completely acceptable. They actually don't look any worse after a blowup if you just sit in the middle of the theater. It's all about the angle of view.

I bet you just didn't use the 7d properly. You had the lens too open and shot a wide angle scene which gives the Canon DSLR's huge problems with aliasing. You need to avoid the pitfalls and know the equipment.

DSLR's also may look terrible compared to RED and ALEXA. But they BLOW every small sensor camcorder out. We really haven't touched any 1/3" camera now that we've learned to do DSLR's properly. And probably will not touch except for the odd "behind the scenes" shoot or a specific wide-angle shot.

 

[Madp]

If the story works all of them look completely acceptable. They actually don't look any worse after a blowup if you just sit in the middle of the theater.

Acceptable is subjective... Obviously in Giuseppe's case the 7D footage is unacceptable to him.

DSLR's also may look terrible compared to RED and ALEXA...

You can't say that DSLRs look terrible compared to ALEXA or RED and while at the same time say they look completely acceptable. That's a contradiction.

So maarek are you going to agree with this posters claim that 7D footage on the big screen is indistinguishable from an Alexa?!?! I just want to be clear here...

 

[G.P.]

No, most are still 2k. I've blown up alot of footage to the screen, HDV, DV, and DSLR material. If the story works all of them look completely acceptable. They actually don't look any worse after a blowup if you just sit in the middle of the theater. It's all about the angle of view.

I bet you just didn't use the 7d properly. You had the lens too open and shot a wide angle scene which gives the Canon DSLR's huge problems with aliasing. You need to avoid the pitfalls and know the equipment.



DSLR's also may look terrible compared to RED and ALEXA. But they BLOW every small sensor camcorder out. We really haven't touched any 1/3" camera now that we've learned to do DSLR's properly. And probably will not touch except for the odd "behind the scenes" shoot or a specific wide-angle shot.

I know how to use a camera correctly and shot at F16 and was focused properly, its the nature of the camera, its just soft when comparing to a high quality camera of the F3, Alexa, and RED. There is no denying that, and there's TONS of tests to prove this on the web with either test charts or 2x and 4x mag views. It seems like the people talking about this have never ACTUALLY put the 7D up on a big screen cutting with an Alexa,F3,Film,RED before... but I have, so why question me?

And I live in New York and most of the theaters here are Sony 4K projectors not 2k . The difference between the two are amazingly apparent. And either way on a large screen, cutting between a non-professional video camera that line skips, has horrible aliasing issues, and super low color and bit rate (a DLSR) and a professional purpose built video camera with no line skipping aliasing filters, high bit rates and color depth (F3, Alexa, RED) is just going to jump out no matter what you do. The fact that theres still an argument about this after time and time and time again this being shown in various different ways is just getting old.

The way I see it is this, the people who keep bringing up these arguments never actually did it, they just talk about it and assume. I've done it, and know many other who have as well, and we all come to the same conclusion, it doesnt cut well on a big screen with another higher end camera. Content is king but if you're worried about visuals, dont mix formats.

 

[Gary Huff]

And I live in New York and most of the theaters here are Sony 4K projectors not 2k . The difference between the two are amazingly apparent. And either way on a large screen, cutting between a non-professional video camera that line skips, has horrible aliasing issues, and super low color and bit rate (a DLSR) and a professional purpose built video camera with no line skipping aliasing filters, high bit rates and color depth (F3, Alexa, RED) is just going to jump out no matter what you do. The fact that theres still an argument about this after time and time and time again this being shown in various different ways is just getting old.

I think a lot of the reports of DSLR footage look good on "a big screen" comes from people who have seen it projected from a 720 or 1080 consumer projector on a decently-sized projection screen, and not so much from a Sony 4k projector. Not all the time, but probably a lot. I can definitely see the issues when I just play it back full-screen on my 1080p computer display.

 

[Barry_Green]

DSLR's also may look terrible compared to RED and ALEXA. But they BLOW every small sensor camcorder out.

But this simply isn't true. I've shown comparison images between a 1/4" HMC40 and the 7D, and the HMC40 was superior in every measurable metric of video quality -- except DOF. (and sensitivity, of course). And there have been numerous tests that have shown the EX1's image fidelity is much superior to the DSLR's.

The DSLR is exactly what it is -- a shallow-DOF machine that provides amazing images FOR THE PRICE. But the price is incredibly low. No DSLR compares to any professional video camera in terms of image fidelity, period.

 

[Chadfish]

It's like the DSLR guys are so invested in making other people believe that their 1,000.00 cameras are not only just as good as real video cameras, but better! It's like a short man complex, where the little guy gets in fights over nothing if he perceives his wee stature is being made fun of. That's not the case. I say if you have a positive claim, show positive proof.

 

[Barry_Green]

I know how to use a camera correctly and shot at F16 and was focused properly.

If you shot an SLR at F/16, then no, you didn't know how to use it correctly. SLRs and any tiny-pixel camera are quite susceptible to diffraction. F/11 is about the lowest you can go on an SLR before you start compromising image sharpness. F/16 will make the DSLR image look softer than it actually is. F/22 is so soft that it can actually be used to fight moire problems.

 

[Ian-T]

....Barry...you just said what I was about to post. Thanks.

EDIT: Wouldn't that issue of diffraction be the same for the more expensive cameras also (F3, AF-100, Red etc.)?

 

[Barry_Green]

....Barry...you just said what I was about to post. Thanks.

EDIT: Wouldn't that issue of diffraction be the same for the more expensive cameras also (F3, AF-100, Red etc.)?

Depends on pixel size. The bigger the pixels, the tighter you can stop the lens down before diffraction becomes an issue. On a tiny HMC40, with 2.2 million pixels on a 1/4" chip, diffraction can be an issue in the red wavelength as soon as f/2.8! On a 1/3" 2.2-megapixel camera, it can hit at about f/5.6. Of course, the 4:2:0 nature of these cameras helps blur the red channel anyway, so as a practical matter you can go a little deeper.

The 18-megapixel 7D (it is 18, right? I forget) puts the pixel size small enough that about f/11 causes issues. The Red has just over half as many pixels so it can go quite a bit deeper in its f-stop before diffraction is a problem. The F3 claims to have only 3.3 megapixels total on an S35-sized chip, so it should be relatively immune from diffraction.

 

[Ian-T]

Ok Thanks.

Had no idea the F3 had so few pixels. But then that probably translates to bigger pixels with better low light ability and allowing for a cleaner image in comparison to a high pixel density camera. Also less chance of moire and aliasing.

 

[Madp]

In all seriousness Barry,

Do you think this is a reasonable statement?
"I guarantee if you were shown 7D, Alexa footage, and 35mm in a theater at a normal viewing distance, you would have a hard time picking them apart."

 

[Barry_Green]

In all seriousness Barry,

Do you think this is a reasonable statement?
"I guarantee if you were shown 7D, Alexa footage, and 35mm in a theater at a normal viewing distance, you would have a hard time picking them apart."

Having had that exact experience (at the SCCE screening) I can guarantee you that any person with average eyesight would easily, handily, and obviously be able to tell them apart.

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

But this simply isn't true. I've shown comparison images between a 1/4" HMC40 and the 7D, and the HMC40 was superior in every measurable metric of video quality -- except DOF. (and sensitivity, of course). And there have been numerous tests that have shown the EX1's image fidelity is much superior to the DSLR's.

The DSLR is exactly what it is -- a shallow-DOF machine that provides amazing images FOR THE PRICE. But the price is incredibly low. No DSLR compares to any professional video camera in terms of image fidelity, period.

This is a flatly ridiculous and really very strange statement. What exactly are we talking about here? A type/shape of a camera? A brand? There is little in common between the 5d and the GH2, and yet, you Barry, and so many others here seem obsessed with lumping them together? Why? The GH2 has MUCH more in common with the AF100 than with the 5d/7d. No, I'm not talking about XLR inputs, etc. I'm talking about image.

Get over this, guys. The term DSLR has little meaning now as a description of the capability of a camera, and will have less and less meaning as we move forward.

And I'm sorry, but we own a lot of cameras, and there's NO WAY you can tell me our HVX200 at 1080 looks even close to as clear as our GH2. The 'image fidelity' is head and shoulders better on the smaller machine.

Honestly, why so much emotion and seeming fear on this subject?

 

[Gary Huff]

And I'm sorry, but we own a lot of cameras, and there's NO WAY you can tell me our HVX200 at 1080 looks even close to as clear as our GH2. The 'image fidelity' is head and shoulders better on the smaller machine.

Maybe not the original 200, but definitely the 200A and the HPX-170. And you don't even have to go up to 1080. At 720, these cameras are still competitive for "image fidelity."

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

It's like the DSLR guys are so invested in making other people believe that their 1,000.00 cameras are not only just as good as real video cameras, but better! It's like a short man complex, where the little guy gets in fights over nothing if he perceives his wee stature is being made fun of. That's not the case. I say if you have a positive claim, show positive proof.

For clarity here: I'm not a 'DSLR guy.' We have an non MX'd red, an older HVX200, the 5d, now the GH2, and, for my clients, we frequently use a tape-based Varicam (yes, many clients still want tape...) shooting 960 x 720. ALL of these cameras 'can' produce stunning images. As always, the subject you're pointing them at matters most.

But seriously, Chadfish. Why are you making this personal. I think you have a good plan. Keep the EX1 (amazing machine), pick up a GH2 when you can (and hack it!), and keep learning and improving your skills. It's all good, man.