Red posts zone plate chart of 7D

[Eddy Robinson]

I still hold a Hollywood Local 728 lighting card, but I'll be damned if I get much lighting work these days.

Yup. This thing I just shot with the GH1, the most artifical lighting lighting we used was 2 650s and a small halogen as a kicker. The low-light sensitivity of these DSLRs is really quite amazing, and with the flagship models such as the 1d, we're rapidly approaching a situation of not needing to add light for functional purposes - there will always be room for artistic lighting, but if you like the way a scene looks to the naked eye it's now feasible to just shoot. Not only do you save money on the rental/purchase cost of the lights themselves, but on a vehicle to haul them around, time, space and grip expenses to set them up etc.

This was my 9th or 10th feature (everything from 35mm to DVX) and the 50th? film project regardless of length, but by far the easiest in terms of lighting. The only negative aspect I see to this is that if you start out with a DSLR you would miss out on the experience of dealing with more complex lighting setups as you move towards more elaborate scenes.

 

[PaPa]

Yup. This thing I just shot with the GH1, the most artifical lighting lighting we used was 2 650s and a small halogen as a kicker. The low-light sensitivity of these DSLRs is really quite amazing, and with the flagship models such as the 1d, we're rapidly approaching a situation of not needing to add light for functional purposes - there will always be room for artistic lighting, but if you like the way a scene looks to the naked eye it's now feasible to just shoot. Not only do you save money on the rental/purchase cost of the lights themselves, but on a vehicle to haul them around, time, space and grip expenses to set them up etc.

This was my 9th or 10th feature (everything from 35mm to DVX) and the 50th? film project regardless of length, but by far the easiest in terms of lighting. The only negative aspect I see to this is that if you start out with a DSLR you would miss out on the experience of dealing with more complex lighting setups as you move towards more elaborate scenes.

I'm finding the same thing. I actually work on cutting a lot of the light that comes with the area. It's easier than bringing your own lights, and with the camera's sensitivity, if lighting is adaquat in your location, then you just need to create a contrast ratio by cutting light in certain sports and lettign other spots receive the existing light. Very cool and neat new way of going about lighting!

So i need more flags and c stands to add to the arsenal with this new found "technique".

 

[Jay Birch]

RED didn't even mention which lens they used on the 7D (before blowing it up to 4k) I'm sure the RED plate had a red pro prime (the lens costs several times more than the 7D!)

As far as i'm aware, Canon have NEVER promoted the 7D or any of their cameras as being cinema quality? Certianly they have never mentioned that it should hold up to a 4k test..

The whole thing is an embarrassing PR mess, in my opinion.

Love the RED cameras, not such a fan of the RED company.

 

[KeithAndrews.TV]

Keep in mind that the folks at RED have a job to do and that is to promote the hell out of their products, existing, or not. Showing the results of a plate test comparing cameras of different price ranges and capabilities is simple marketing.

Also, I rarely produce independent films for the screen, or web. I primarily work and shoot in the commercial realm of the industry, which means 100% of the content that I am shooting gets re-encoded and decoded via digital broadcasting. It would make no sense for me to over-analyze the image quality of the acquisition device because no matter how I acquire, or edit the video, I really have no control over the end delivery.

I think some people forget about this fact. They get too caught up on how lousy, or how great something looks straight out of the camera, or against a chart, that they don't realize that there is more to the picture than raw imagery.

It's also absolutely true that when the consumer is offered a "good enough" solution at a fairly inexpensive price, that product is often times well received by the public. This I believe is the case with the new DSLR video cameras. It would be the same as to compare a Lexus to a Kia. Both have four wheels, both get you from point A to point B, but one costs a lot less than the other and doesn't have the same features. Guess what, Kia still sells, and sells a bunch. So will future DSLR offerings when Scarlet is released.

 

[shaocaholica]

The problem is that during the initial( and I guess ongoing) RED hype, they managed to gain the interest of people who would never be able to afford their products. Lots of those people might I add. Now those people are shooting on 5Ds, 7Ds, GH1s, etc and RED is scratching its head why so many are now comparing the two. Blame REDs charm I guess but they should have seen this coming.

 

[Strobe Media]

A film student, or someone with no industry contacts has no business trying to own a red.

Do you seriously feel that way? Sure i'm not a film student or own a RED, but that's like saying if you don't race cars for a living you have no business owning a fast car, it just doesn't make sense.

 

[NoahK]

Ha don't get me started on the RED nomenclature- I'm still praying they change the new EVF to something else besides BOMB EVF for those of us unfortunate enough to have to fly US commercial airlines. Because we all know two qualities most TSA screeners have are a great sense of humor and an in-depth knowledge of filmmaking equipment.

Noah

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Keep in mind that the folks at RED have a job to do and that is to promote the hell out of their products, existing, or not. Showing the results of a plate test comparing cameras of different price ranges and capabilities is simple marketing.

I would agree if they hadn't shut down their 7d/5d forum.

This just smacks of desparation.

 

[Barry_Green]

RED didn't even mention which lens they used on the 7D (before blowing it up to 4k) I'm sure the RED plate had a red pro prime (the lens costs several times more than the 7D!)

The better the lens they put on that 7D, the WORSE that zone plate would look. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but it's the truth. Aliasing happens when the lens passes too much detail on to the chips. So the sharper the lens, the even MORE detail gets passed through (that the chips can't handle in the first place) and the zone plate looks worse and worse.

 

[KeithAndrews.TV]

I would agree if they hadn't shut down their 7d/5d forum.

This just smacks of desparation.

Well RED has their own following, but it's certainly not everyone, and it never will be. When Scarlet comes out it will be expensive and it will be good. There will be some who will want to pay the extra money to get the better quality, but not everyone will.

I've been working in the industry for over 10 years now as a professional Videographer and I have learned that technology moves too fast to try and keep up with it and still make the mortgage. So, I either rent when the client is paying, or own a camera that offers quality that works for me and my clients at a reasonable price point, but I personally have never owned, or even attempted to own a CineAlta, or VariCam, or RED, etc...

Eventually we will see very high quality imagery from inexpensive cameras. It's just a matter of time until the technology improves and the manufacturing process becomes less expensive.

 

[Jason Adams]

Its even interesting to me that Red would feel they need to prove the inferiority of an DSLR camera. Everyone Knows Red is better but until I can click the BUY NOW button on a Scarlet the 7D is making me money. Red don't show us your better. Finish your product so we can all use our 7Ds for the kids soccer game and our trips to Disney World. Give me a better comparably priced option and I'll buy it today.

Less 7D finger pointing and more Scarlet finishing will settle this debate.

 

[Jay Birch]

The better the lens they put on that 7D, the WORSE that zone plate would look. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but it's the truth. Aliasing happens when the lens passes too much detail on to the chips. So the sharper the lens, the even MORE detail gets passed through (that the chips can't handle in the first place) and the zone plate looks worse and worse.

Well, this is kind of my point.... they could easily pick and choose a lens that makes the 7D perform as poor as possible and the RED perform as good as possible.

If RED are going to start testing cameras for "educational" reasons, for their userbase.... they have to at the very least give basic info like lens used, camera settings etc.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Well, this is kind of my point.... they could easily pick and choose a lens that makes the 7D perform as poor as possible and the RED perform as good as possible.

If RED are going to start testing cameras for "educational" reasons, for their userbase.... they have to at the very least give basic info like lens used, camera settings etc.

To be fair, no matter what lens you put on the 7D, a zone plate is pretty much going to look like that. A 10% improvement would move it from "horrible" to "terrible". But it does/can make a pretty picture in the real world!

 

[jambredz]

But it does/can make a pretty picture in the real world!

And thats the bottom line.

I've enjoyed reading all through this thread...got alot of laughs. But all this techno babble gets old (and i dont even understand it all by any means), at the end of the day its what it looks like on TV for me. RED would be overkill for where i am (jamaica) and what i;m doing. We have people ... well one RED package i know of out here and it looks like crap when broadcasted. But hey...they can say "i shot on RED"( yeh its like that here). Actually i think its quite embarassing to say it was shot on RED. I'm still shooting on my dvx and hope to get a 7d rig this year and hope to make amazing images...and it will look like crap when broadcasted albeit better crap than the dvx, but i would have spent $5k on that rig and have alot of supporting equipment that can work on my dvx eg. shouldermount, mattebox, follow focus, monitor ect.

So I just say analyse WHAT your shooting and WHERE it will end up and choose a rig that does that and stop being caught up with all kinda crap . lets be honest...how many people productions are going to the big screen? why spend ALL that $$ to say u shot on X or Y?!
Your not gonna take a Zone plate chart and show ur client "see this cam shoots these lines better than that, so drop some MAJOR cash on it" ...and they cant even tell the difference when its either broadcast or put on dvd or put on the web. I'm not knocking RED...just saying we need to choose the right tool for the right occasion and stop fooling ourselves.

Charts shmarts...what does it look like when u deliver to whatever you are delivering to?

 

[Dan_Kanes]

I know a lot of talent who work completely digitally and you can still prove a lot of cinema skills without stepping into the real world on a $1500 or less computer. Think of all the digital focus pullers and lighters and DPs at Pixar who don't ever touch a real camera (granted they probably have a traditional film education but there are upstarts who don't).

Sorry, I think we have a misunderstanding of what cinematography is.

This is an abstract meta concept, but what you are talking about is in a totally different realm of the arts. Pixar does Animation. While no less of an art, it relies more on the creation of images from the imagination or 'ideal' world. Certainly not a criticism, they do amazing things. I'm talking about the use of a physical camera in our physical world to capture moments (real, imagined or a combination thereof) to tell a story.

This distinction dates back to before the invention of photography - deep deep into art history and philosophy. In essence, as filmmakers or storytellers what we are doing is telling "white lies."

every representation of reality or imagination features varying degrees of truth. Even a news clip is in essence only a partial truth because it is subjective.

Very corny and heavy stuff at the same time, but certainly food for thought.

In any case, I'm speaking of making movies using the kind of cameras we have in the physical realm.

(and don't start with digital cinematography being a form of animation because I've already thought of that argument )

 

[shaocaholica]

Pixar does Animation

What aspects of cinematography, as you see it, don't apply to works done by Pixar and other animation studios?

What about the 99-100% CG shots from Avatar that didn't involve a physical camera? Isn't that still cinematography in a higher sense?

Pixar, Dreamworks, ILM, etc don't just do "animation". Animation without cinematography is essentially acting without a camera.

 

[Dan_Kanes]

What aspects of cinematography, as you see it, don't apply to works done by Pixar and other animation studios?

What about the 99-100% CG shots from Avatar that didn't involve a physical camera? Isn't that still cinematography in a higher sense?

Pixar, Dreamworks, ILM, etc don't just do "animation". Animation without cinematography is essentially acting without a camera.

Did you even read what I wrote?

If you need me to break it down I will.

First read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

then this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadweard_Muybridge

then this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_art

and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction

and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_art

Someone could live in Plato's Cave animating all day long with no idea of how to use a physical camera, interact with Human Actors, set a light, manage a crew or work with a director.

Am I saying this is bad? No.

Does this make animation any less valuable or important? No.

Does it mean there is a distinction between Cinematography and Animation. Yes, clearly.

I'm not saying this has anything to do with Pixar - but if you understand Art and Philosophy you will be able to break down what I'm saying and understand it. It's okay to disagree but as of now I see literally no argument from you as how animating digital characters pertains to the operating of a motion picture camera or running a set or working with a crew.

And don't get me started on Avatar - yes, what James Cameron and crew have done is combine the physical world as we perceive it with an animated world as created by our imaginations - that's great, and yes it does involve physical cameras and physical cinematography, but much of it is, like you said 90% to 100% animation. Okay? And your point is? For what it's worth your argument is the same as saying that Roger Rabbit is 100% cinematography. It's not. It's a combination of Animation and Cinematography that work together.

In conclusion, read up on the difference between the real world, and the ideal world, read about the Allegory of the Cave and get back to me if you understand what any of that means.

Ultimately this returns to the Zone Plate, because yes - the Zone Plate is merely an abstraction - BUT one that APPLIES to REAL LIFE. Because, if you encounter a fine repeating pattern in real life you will indeed encounter Moire and aliasing in your footage.

Does anyone remember the Thick vs. Thin setting on the DVX100?

And, to toss more fuel on the fire - I would highly disagree with the statement that a softer lens would make the zone plate look better on the 7D. Particularly on a bayer pattern sensor there is much more than sharpness to how the sensor reacts to a plate: Let's not forget Contrast and Chromatic Aberration. You could have a lens that is very sharp but with super shitty CA. Or you could have a lens or sensor that distorts or modifies contrast at the minute detail level (think HMC40) that turns the fine detail into flat gray instead of moire'd disaster - That seems to me to having nothing to do with Sharpness Per Se, but rather handling of Micro-Contrast. Stop me if I'm wrong.

 

[shaocaholica]

I see literally no argument from you as how animating digital characters pertains to the operating of a motion picture camera or running a set or working with a crew.

I never said anything about animating characters. Pixar and crew work with virtual cameras with virtual lenses with virtual f-stops. They have people, who are trained in cinematography, animate those cameras. All of that is modeled after the real world including their lights. Yes, working with real actors live is different but we're getting away from the camera now. When you create a virtual world, you still need a virtual camera. Operating those virtual cameras is in most cases modeled after the real world and the same principles of real world cinematography apply.

 

[digitalfilmmaker]

You Are Confused

You Are Confused

Did you even read what I wrote?

I'm not saying this has anything to do with Pixar - but if you understand Art and Philosophy you will be able to break down what I'm saying and understand it. It's okay to disagree but as of now I see literally no argument from you as how animating digital characters pertains to the operating of a motion picture camera or running a set or working with a crew.

But you are setting up a straw man -- the act of animating a character is more analogous to acting/performing. The camera, lighting and design work done on an animated film is very similar to what happens on a major studio film's set, only with even more control.

Listen to Andrew Stanton talk about how they brought in Roger Deakins to help tweak the cameras and cinematography on Wall-E.

The larger question is what our industry will struggle with for the next ten years, is cinematography the physical act of touching a machine in the real world to tell a story, or is it touching a virtual machine to tell a story. I think that we'll evolve into the latter since it's ultimately using the same techniques to tell stories, but that doesn't mean there won't be a massive struggle and coming to terms with this new reality.

If Avatar wins Best Cinematography at the Oscars I think it will be a continued blurring of what it means to be an image maker.

 

[Dan_Kanes]

I never said anything about animating characters. Pixar and crew work with virtual cameras with virtual lenses with virtual f-stops. They have people, who are trained in cinematography, animate those cameras. All of that is modeled after the real world including their lights. Yes, working with real actors live is different but we're getting away from the camera now. When you create a virtual world, you still need a virtual camera. Operating those virtual cameras is in most cases modeled after the real world and the same principles of real world cinematography apply.

Agree with these principles and know about this and agree with you 100%.

The key word you used that gives away what I am talking about is this:

Modeled After.

Modeled - as in simulation of. A simulation is a copy or imitation, a REpresentation. Again, not a critique, just an observation.

Allegory:

I could be the world's best RC Helicopter pilot. It MIGHT mean I could fly a real helicopter in an emergency, and chances are I could do it better than someone who has NEVER flown a real or RC helicopter - but that doesn't make me a Helicopter Pilot. It makes me a virtual helicopter pilot.

I'm not trying to be a jerk :laugh: - I actually enjoy this kind of discussion. Here's another interesting article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum