Mark II vs the Canon A1.........

Certainly are entitled to your opinion.. Just not sure what you mean, and I'm not sure if you would find a lot of people that would agree.

The video really speaks for itself. Dynamic range, resolution, and saturation are some of the defining characteristics of film. The 5D is far better in all three of these areas as demonstrated. The HV20 and A1 is a step in the wrong direction, therefore can not be more film like.

At least, that's my logic :)

IMO 5D video looks like Kodak film stock...
 
i've seen lots of footages on big screen using my WD TV. it's a litlle bit better but not much. I'm just speaking about fiction indie filmmakers. their work is principally shown on the internet. it's better to have the more filmic image then. if, after that, they are asked to work on bigger projects they will probably rent something bigger than 5D anyway. i agree that 5D is an incredible camera, that it is fantastic for wedding photographers, events shooters, documentaries. but even DVX with stock lens looks more like 16mm than the 5D. and the soft image is part of it IMO, with 24p of course. i'm not criticizing the canon, it's of course a revolution, but it's a different product, a specific look. it doesn't mean anything to put it against the A1. these looks are just about taste. i would die to have a video cam that produces that (no shallow DOF, not super sharp): http://www.vimeo.com/3858822 but it's just my tastes.
 
Daniel L. said:
The video really speaks for itself. Dynamic range, resolution, and saturation are some of the defining characteristics of film. The 5D is far better in all three of these areas as demonstrated. The HV20 and A1 is a step in the wrong direction, therefore can not be more film like.

At least, that's my logic :)

IMO 5D video looks like Kodak film stock...
Click to expand...

i totally agree with you when i look at that comparison footage. but when i browse all the videos on vimeo, etc. (even shown on my hdtv) i just find nothing shot with the 5D that looks like film. even if there is some beautiful things! Characteristics of film are one thing, the feeling you have when you watch the footage is another. i would really like to be proven wrong and to see some cinematic 5D footage (i would save some money by selling my cams and adapters ^^).
 
ArthurD said:
i totally agree with you when i look at that comparison footage. but when i browse all the videos on vimeo, etc. (even shown on my hdtv) i just find nothing shot with the 5D that looks like film. even if there is some beautiful things! Characteristics of film are one thing, the feeling you have when you watch the footage is another. i would really like to be proven wrong and to see some cinematic 5D footage (i would save some money by selling my cams and adapters ^^).
Click to expand...


Cause it isn't film.........

Genesis doesn't look like film. Viper doesn't look like film. Red doesn't even look like film. However they do look like hyper clean digital imagery.

You want the look of film, shoot film.

Holy Christ, put this stupid over debated archaic FUD topic to rest, permanently! PLEASE..

And my Mitsubishi doesn't look like the Millenium Falcon either. Cause it isn't....................


Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms


Anamorphic DSLR Lens Test Images... links:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1638289&postcount=97
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1637705&postcount=84

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
Myspace:
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }

.


.
 
Last edited:
It is what it is.
I'm a 'tog, and I see the equivalent sort of thing in magazine letters from time-to-time, usually from amateur watercolourists who complain that photos are too sharp, and why can't they be more like the fuzzy wishy-washy daubs they turn out :Drogar-Evil(DBG):
Film is film and digital is digital, each have their inbuilt characteristics, and trying, or even wanting to try to make one look like the other is futile.
Now get over it and move on.
Dave
 
Haha pappasart, you re a funny guy. You opened this thread. I was just reacting to your comparison of "videoish" A1 against the 35mm film look of the 5D. And now you re telling me that this discussion is stupid because video will never look like film. Relax ^^. Everything will be fine. I m reacting against these stupid comparisons. Unfair most of the time. And this stupid race to newer cameras. 1 month ago everybody thought that owning a 5D would make them the best director ever. This month it's the GH1. And the Gh1 is not even in the US that people are already speaking about the samsung that is in fact THE camera to be the best director. I m just watching footages of all the cameras and i see tons of good looking almost cinematic short movies shot with "archaic" cams but none with these new toys. I m just questioning. And i shoot film but that s not the same cost.
 
The "digital film cinema look" and aesthetics is going to become the standard in theaters across the globe as digital projection takes over. There is no doubt about that. The same way "digital still photography" has become the standard in print as well as the internet. Nobody in the general public goes out and watch movies like Miami Vice, Spy Kids or Crank 2 and come out at the end saying, oh that was shot with digital cameras. They don't know or don't care.
 
I think RAW digital can look like film - no disrespect the cinema people dont seem to have got the hang of correctly EXPOSING, controlling and lighting CONTRAST or making appropriate RAW CURVES to make thier digital filmic

The fact that as far as I can work out even cams like the F35 still process in camera seems archaic to a stills guy

the bumbling of understanding raw I see on RedUser is laughable

Us stills people have been cooking our own raw for almost a decade now one frame at a time

Of course shutter shape and angle and the fact digital is 'rolling' is really the only difference

my stills lifestyle portfolio doesnt look very digital IMO

www.sammorganmoore.com/smmcom/blogger2.asp?blogid=41&pic=9

S
 
=T Raw gets close, but no cigar. Especially in video world. I'm really sorry.. but Digital will never actually be film and it's time that people start realizing this.

Digital is it's own thing, it isn't film and shouldn't try to be film. Cinematics are more important than trying to mimic a Photochemical process with electromagnetic signals.

To date, there's not a single digital image that looks exactly like film, and even film stocks are still advancing. If you want film, you must shoot film.
 
Dudes.... FILM looks like film.

The 5d looks like soft red footage to me. plasticky and unnatural. still pretty, but something is off.
 
TimurCivan said:
Dudes.... FILM looks like film.

The 5d looks like soft red footage to me. plasticky and unnatural. still pretty, but something is off.
Click to expand...

That is exactly it. D90 = DVX footage with Interchangeable lenses, GH-1 = EX-1 with interchangeable lenses, 5D = Soft RED footage downrezzed to 1080ish.
 
All digital is rubbish (compared to a RAW Hasselblad H3d file) (apart from RED?) right now

if you could take 24FPS with a nikon D3 or a Hassy H3d in RAW and knew how to light for the right contrast, add some grain and the right curve the difference would be smaaaall

But that is a pain and also only in the future

I hope the DSLR developers are trying to up thier stills frame rates rather than crummy codecs, the Nikon D3 alreay bursts at 13FPS

If that was upped to 24 and buffered it would be awesome - and it will come

S
 
Um, you're forgetting a little problem known as the mechanical shutter. The mechanical shutter is employed on digital cameras with electronic shutter capabilities (i.e. all live view cameras) because it increases image quality due to the way that data is read off of the sensor. A mechanical shutter can't be used for video because it would wear out too fast.
 
go to 1:00 in the video, close up of the lady. I can clearly see more wrinkles in the a1 shot.

Im just a little disappointed in the 5D rez compared to the A1. the later is sharper, dont understand why this is not taken up.

this is the first test that iv seen, showing so closely the differences and it clearly shows the results, canon a1 is sharper, but has less DR and the 5d seems to have nicer color rendition.

good test.
 
Looks like they just missed focus. If you look at the rest of the clips, especially the grass on the first one, the 5D is much sharper.
 
Yeaaah not to mention the DOF in general. It's really hard for me to doubt that the MKii resolves more detail AND is inherently sharper (two different facets of image) than any other sub RED camera. Despite the Aliasing and occassional banding.

Would be interesting to see how HPX2700's compare in the resolution department, though.
 
just watched "My Bloody Valentine" on BR disc.

IT looks SO much like DSLR stills in sequence. ACtually i didint like it.... Toooo Clean. Too sharp...

The horror film looked like an ad for a snuggie or something.....

i imagine 5DmkII looing similar...
 
TimurCivan said:
just watched "My Bloody Valentine" on BR disc.

IT looks SO much like DSLR stills in sequence. ACtually i didint like it.... Toooo Clean. Too sharp...

The horror film looked like an ad for a snuggie or something.....

i imagine 5DmkII looing similar...
Click to expand...

The good thing about te mkii is that it's not as clean as red. That might be an advantage but then again you can always dirty up clean footage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top