I'm curious. Did you watch the comparison?
The Great Camera Shootout 2010
- Thread starter Martti Ekstrand
- Start date
Keegan O'Brien
Member
Not to sound rude, but have you taken any video with a DSLR? Low light performance from stills with a DSLR is completely different from video with DSLR. Sure, you can shoot in low light with the high ISO DSLR offers, but its incredibly grainy. Stills are a different story. Film captures so much more information, and can be stretched and manipulated with out "noise" in all situations. Have you seen The Dark Knight? Blade Runner? Any movie shot in the night with 35mm? No noise at all. 35mm captures more, so it can be manipulated much more then DSLR footage.
When you compare these two formats you seem to be forgetting about, RESOLUTION. 35mm film "mops the floor" with DSLR in terms of resolution, projected onto a large screen it wouldn't hold up as well as film. It just doesn't. It's not designed for it. I love my T2i to death, but it simply can't compete with 35mm in terms of resolution, color, latitude, etc...
daveswan, yes, of course. The market for DSLR's is much bigger then for the "Big" cameras. My point is that 35mm should not be compared to DSLR's, because they have different purposes. There is a reason block busters are not filmed with DSLR's, they are in a different market then 35mm, Red, CineAlta, etc.... Comparing them may be fun for trivial purposes, but the two formats really aren't competing with each other.
I love my DSLR, the image it produces is very flawed, but its great for a lot of things. It has its issues, but for the price its great. I'm not being negative towards them at all, I just think its a little unfair to compare them to 35mm, as it would be unfair to compare 35mm film to 70mm film.
Did you watch the comparison? I watched it several times. I thought I recall them saying the DSLR was superior recovering detail in the shadows, and from what I saw the DSLR is at least the equal to film in that regard. I've had decades of experience with film and high ISO sucks period with film. It just doesn't compare with DSLR and especially with the 5DII at least in a still capacity. And yes I've Done some testing with the 5DII, but I haven't been concerned with super low light aquisition. No need, it appears that the industry professional have done a fine job here.
Just in my testing with natural light, sharpness/resolution is very good (on my 52" Samsung), but I'm not following the conventional wisdom of shooting flat and turning sharpening all the way down. Just in the early stages of doing this now. But ASC Shane Hurlbut wouldn't be shooting 80-85% of the Warner Brothers Release "The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday" if Resolution sucked. He has said as filming progressed, the shots planned with 35mm have been replaced using the 5DII as the camera has proved itself. How many film outs have you done with the DSLR? How much shooting have you done with the DSLR and Panavision lenses? with Zeiss lenses? All accounts are that the DSLR hold up very well on the big screen. You don't need my personal experience. The pros have said sharpness and resolution are excellent.
There's a reason big features aren't shot on DSLR. Maybe because they've only been out for less than two years? I'll be waiting for the "The only easy day was yesterday" in anticipation. "Tiny Furniture" won the SXSW best film award. It was shot on the 7D. Story and talent is the factor that matters. Film is dead, and I'm happy to throw the first shovel of dirt on its coffin.
I've spent over 2 decades in the darkroom with film. It's not what it's cracked up to be, and there are many problems with it. It's generally a royal pain in the ass. It has problems. Problems I'm more than willing to give up at the sacrifice of a stop or two of highlight detail for the tremendous picture quality of the vDSLR. I don't even really see it a compromise because of the instant feedback it brings to production. It will not affect the directors story telling ability one jot, tittle or iota. The DSLR will start to rule music video production if it hasn't already, and then creep into features which it has already "Tiny Furniture".
Last edited:
Keegan O'Brien
Member
Yes, I've watched the comparison twice now. You talk as though DSLR's are the pinnacle of digital video technology. They aren't. They are great, and I love using my T2i/550D, but even in terms of digital technology they are not the best. I'm not talking about stills. Never have been. Digital stills have far surpassed film in my opinion, as will digital video pass film in the future. But its not there yet. A multi million dollar budget movie will NEVER use a $2,600 camera, it just won't happen, and why should they? I'll provide a quote from Wally Pfister (Cinematographer of The Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Memento, The Italian Job):
For shorts and low budget features the DSLR's are great, but not for films I'm going to pay $10 to see in the cinema. Film is not dead, it may die off with this generation of cinematographers and directors, but right now its very much alive. The majority of films still coming out in theaters are shot on 35mm film, and then we have 70mm/IMAX which completely destroys DSLR, Red, you name it.
My problem with trusting what the people in the video say is that every single one of them is completely pro digital. Bloom=Digital, Robert Primes=Digital, and Jens Bogehen= Digital. Just watch their "film fellas" episodes, they have nothing good to say about film. I'd like to hear a opinion from some one who really has no preference between the two formats. All of the people reviewing the footage have made it very clear before doing this comparison that they prefer digital, it seems biased.
Wouldn't Hurlbut qualify as that unbiased opinion. He's a ASC DP that has shot film all of his career. He's converted to the vDSLR.
In any case, I would really like to see an in depth debate between pro DSLR DPs like ASC Shane Hurlbut, ASC Rodney Chartes and anti DSLR/Digital DPs like Wally Phister, David Mullen etc. There really shouldn't be any debate on the issue. The proof is on the 40 foot screen or it isn't. I would think "The only easy day was yesterday" would be exceeding a million dollar budget easily, but I could be wrong. The 5DII is being used for 80-85% of it.
Just a side note about low light noise with the 5DII. Hurlbut shoots with ISO 1600, and puts a kodak grain layer over it in post and says it eats the noise right up. He finds it totally acceptable. And of course there's much footage from Bloom in low light, and I'm not noticing much noise.
I did kinda chuckle at this line from Phister.
He is kidding right? The public has made it known they could care less as evidenced by the widely accepted mp3 format in music. They will never be the gate keeper for the highest quality media.
Keegan O'Brien
Member
His point is that since the public is paying money to see a film, he wants it to look as good as possible, and the best way to do that is to shoot on 35mm film. Nolan, Spielberg, Scorsese, Favreau, Bay, Eastwood, the list goes on, they all prefer there films to be shot on 35mm. Here is a quote from Christopher Nolan that pretty much sums up my viewpoint:
Pretty much, I think recording the images at the highest possible quality is the best thing to do, so then the film can be shown in any way, shape or form you want it to be in. For me, right now 1920x1080 RAW with a DSLR is the highest quality image I can capture with my budget, but I know that it doesn't stop at 1080p.
I think the lesson to be had from the tests is not "can and should a major motion picture today be made with a DSLR instead of film" but rather, the new kid on the block is a lot closer in quality than anyone could have imagined even a year two ago. Now extrapolate that progress made to the next 10 or 20 years and imagine the possibilities.
I'm also wondering if it isn't 40 ft screens but the rapid rise in the use of the YouTubes & Vimeos of the world over the past few years as many people's primary viewing sources, and the perceptible differences between a $5000 and $50000 camera is much closer than it used to be. That should be extrapolated 10 or 20 years too.
I'm also wondering if it isn't 40 ft screens but the rapid rise in the use of the YouTubes & Vimeos of the world over the past few years as many people's primary viewing sources, and the perceptible differences between a $5000 and $50000 camera is much closer than it used to be. That should be extrapolated 10 or 20 years too.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
I'm confused about this resolution business.
I did some simple tests of a resolution chart comparing a 5D and 7D with an EX-1 both clean and through a 35mm SGBlade adapter.
The EX-1 even through the adapter ate the Canon's lunch on the charts with the canon's turning to horrible moire somewhere around 500+ lines. Now the Ex-1 has nowhere near the resolution of film or even its digital big brothers like a 2/3" camera's or a Red, so where does that leave the Canon. In subjective side by side tests or ordinary imagery I also see the same lack of resolution in the Canon.
So how can we be comparing it favorably to 35mm? Something doesn't quite make sense to me here. ( By the way I have tasted the kool aid and bought a T2i last week.)
Is this an accurate comparison of resolution or would the Canon's do much better if they were resolving something other than parallel line pairs which encourage moire?
I expect that Moire issues should pop up in the later installments of the "Great shootout" . If not then they will be poor comparisons indeed.
Lenny Levy
I did some simple tests of a resolution chart comparing a 5D and 7D with an EX-1 both clean and through a 35mm SGBlade adapter.
The EX-1 even through the adapter ate the Canon's lunch on the charts with the canon's turning to horrible moire somewhere around 500+ lines. Now the Ex-1 has nowhere near the resolution of film or even its digital big brothers like a 2/3" camera's or a Red, so where does that leave the Canon. In subjective side by side tests or ordinary imagery I also see the same lack of resolution in the Canon.
So how can we be comparing it favorably to 35mm? Something doesn't quite make sense to me here. ( By the way I have tasted the kool aid and bought a T2i last week.)
Is this an accurate comparison of resolution or would the Canon's do much better if they were resolving something other than parallel line pairs which encourage moire?
I expect that Moire issues should pop up in the later installments of the "Great shootout" . If not then they will be poor comparisons indeed.
Lenny Levy
LOL!!
Im pretty sure a LOT of people cannot afford these cameras, nor even considered getting them because of the insanely high prices. So, why compare cameras that most people don't care about? I know I wouldn't care.
DSLR are cheap, affordable, and popular. They shoot video! Its getting more popular. I'm sure people will want to watch a comparison of cameras they can afford to get, not something that's way out of their league and dont even care about the high end cameras at all.
Im sure you wouldnt notice the difference if no one told you. Same with the rest of the millions of people who don't care what its shot on. If it looks interesting and good enough quality, it'll be a hit. Like Paranormal Activity - the only movie I can think of that was not shot on an expensive camera. And how did it turn out? Well... you should know.
Last edited:
handsome pete
Well-known member
Um, where can you shoot RAW with a DSLR?
Well so far we've only seen the episode regarding latitude. Film still won out, but the point was more that the DLSRs looked damn good in comparison.
Keegan O'Brien
Member
Most people can't exactly afford the Arri they are comparing the DSLR's to. And anyone who knows anything about image quality would be able to tell the difference.
Instead of typing out this comment, you could have just said, "f**K the art of cinematography".
Keegan O'Brien
Member
You can shoot RAW with the T2i/7D/5D MII. I know you can for a fact with the T2i, but I'm just assuming you can with the other Canons.
You own the T2i and you're saying you can shoot video in RAW? I think your confusing that with being able to shoot RAW in still mode. The T2i will not shoot video in RAW. You're assuming you can with the other Canons?
Experienced pros in that test were saying that there were aspects of the DSLR image where it was difficult to tell the difference. Only looking into the extended highlights was their an apparent difference between 35mm and DSLR. I've been watching film for years, and have been a still photographer for decades with film. It was difficult for me to discern the difference in the middle values between the DSLR and 35mm.
Last edited:
Finnegan
Well-known member
And here is what I've been waiting for someone to say. 35mm film has been and still is the gold standard of quality. It is unmatched in a number of areas that are important to cinematography...areas like color space, resolution (in most cases), exposure latitude, and highlight protection, to name a few. But there are places where DSLRs are unmatched as well, namely price, size, accessibility, and convenience. The idea with this comparison is to illustrate that a good amount of quality (and if you really watched the test and studied the images, a ridiculously high amount of quality) is retained with a camera that is far and away the cheaper format. I don't think anyone is arguing that the HDSLR rigs beat out 35mm. Personally, I think that I could "feel" the difference between 35mm film and HDSLRs even if I wasn't able to exactly put my finger on why the two images were different.
I too chuckled at the Wally Pfister ASC quote, but for a different reason. I've met Wally a couple times, and I've spoken to him about this issue particularly because so many people use that quote to argue for film in the whole "film vs. digital" argument. He told me that it is being taken out of context in most cases, which I think is true. See, you have to realize that Pfister is speaking about quality from the point of view of an accomplished Hollywood cinematographer. Of course, when you're making movies with enormous budgets, you can afford to use the absolute highest quality there is - 35mm film. But, most of us aren't hugely successful Hollywood cinematographers. And that's what this test is telling us - we can still create gorgeous imagery that is COMPARABLE (read: not better than) to 35mm film.
There are tons of movies out there that are shot 1080p and no one in the audience knows the difference. Look at the second trilogy of Star Wars, Public Enemies, anything Robert Rodriguez does nowdays...most people don't know the difference in the audience. 1080p as a capture format is fine for the cinema if you're a good cinematographer who has composed and lit the shots well, and if you have a good colorist - same as film. I don't know where this notion of "1080p doesn't look good on the bigscreen" came from. Sure, it may not be the best looking thing on screen, but it's fine if you're on a budget.
Now, the REAL test of film vs. digital will be with RED epic/scarlet and Arri Alexa vs. 35mm film. I've heard a number of resounding opinions on the cameras already, with a number of high profile cinematographers declaring that 2010 is the year film died. That sparks some of my interest, especially since I shot on the new RED M-X chip a couple weeks ago and was hugely impressed.
All in all, I think in the end the motto still goes that it's different tools for different projects. All capture formats both film and digital have flaws and strengths, and being a good cinematographer means being able to recognizes both so that you can utilize the camera/format to its greatest potential. I think there are way too many threads like these deliberating essentially what is a moot point in film since it all comes down to art, craft, and the ability to tell stories. Digital technology is progressing fast. What happens when we get to the point where everyone can shoot 5k resolution RAW format 6400 ISO video on their iPhone with no noise? Because eventually that point will come - and the only thing that will matter then is how well you light for effect, and how well you compose your shots, and how well you tell your story. The technology itself never matters, in my opinion. There are too many people who spend their time deliberating numbers and tech specs and all this theoretical crunching but they never actually go out and shoot something and look at it with their eyes. It's kind of taking things in the wrong direction.
Last edited:
Ben_B
Veteran
*shrug*
This is totally my opinion and the way I personally view the cameras so nobody jump on me here: but in terms of image and features I've basically totally ruled the 7D (and T2i) out of my life...so it doesn't matter to me too much that they improved that. The 5D and 7D both suck to shoot video on, but the 5D looks better, and in some (well, some to many) situations can look a little bit better than the GH1. But the GH1 is wonderful to shoot with for a camera of this type....so the 7D pretty much gets ignored by me (the T2i less so because of the price.) It's nice that they're putting more features in though. Of course, you would think they could have slapped that in with the 2.0.3/4 firmware. Anyway, it's not super inconvenient. You can always check how much you have left on the card in GB, since it records about 3 min per gig, and once you're below 999 photos available on the card it will start counting down the photos and you can guesstimate....I just think it's more indicative of the differences in the Canon and Panasonic paradigm. Canon's first hybrid was a DSLR with video shoved in. Panasonic's first was a proper hybrid...and I can't wait for their second. Canon has come out with a few since then but with no real major improvements that make them more than just SLRs with video to the GH1's true hybrid form. And it's not just because the nature of m4/3 automatically makes it a good hybrid...I don't consider the G2 or the G10 or the GF1 great hybrids..because the video features are not good enough to replace even the consumer camcorders available on the market at their price-points. Panasonic doesn't consider them video hybrids either...hence the lack of an H designation.
John Brawley
Well-known member
Wow.
You think David Mullen is anti-digital ??? You do realise how much digital he's been shooting right ? How about we give credit to cynical cinematographers choosing the best tool for the job within the budget constraints imposed on them ?
This is such a moronic argument...sigh...
This clip shows a few things.
For starters there's no question overall that film is better in terms of colour latitude, dynamic range and resolution. 'Course they never really said It's better. They just talk about it being a standard they want to match.
They didn't test it on cameras in motion, so there's no rolling shutter issues to embarrass them either.
I thought the DSLR footage looked flat and bad as far as colour reproduction. It's VERY VERY hard to tell on the web though, so it's a bit unfair. IE, we can't see compression artefacts in the blacks on the DSLR's but I know they're there....
What I want to know is where are the knuckleheads that say film is dead cause digital is better ? The ones who've been spruiking the *digital revolution* and *film is dead* mantra for the last 15 years...?? Over and over again I've heard this and never once has a digital format ACTUALLY been better in this kind of test. It started with Hi8. Then MiniDV. Then Dogme... It didn't stop Sony and George Lucas saying that F900's and HDCAM were going to kill film. And where are all the people that jumped on the star wars / george lucas says film is dead bandwagon ? Where are they now ? Meanwhile the F900's are being pensioned off and HDCAM as an acquisition format as been replaced with HDCAM SR, not to mention data based files. Sorry to all you guys that bought F900's when they were $150k.
I also thought that the 35mm film looked kinda crappy as well. Go and see Shutter Island to be reminded how beautiful film origination can be.... too bad the story doesn't gel there....
They all wanted everything to meet in the middle for the sake of the grade, so they could actually all be close for the comparison. What you don't get to see is how far you could move the image away from what you saw there. With DSLR's, they are stretching them to their utmost to get everything out of the and it'll fall apart much faster than the film would. They were kind of dumbing down the film to get it to match.... There was a very telling moment if you watched it all through. Remember where they talked about matching the blue in the tiles on the wall in the bathroom and that when they did so, the DSLR's skin tone went way down...ie not fixable ?
Funny how they didn't elaborate on that. Trading one part of the grade for another... They also didn't talk about the nature of clipping in highlights with these cameras. It's a problem with all digital clipping. They all look harsh to me. Even when film is clipped out, it has a much nicer more gentle look. So not only does it have more detail in highlights, it's a softer more gentle transition to white.
I realise that most of the posters here aren't 100% professional and more on the indie side of life and probably don't have a lot of film based experience so I hope this doesn't come across too harshly. It's not meant to.
Everyone watches a clip and posts proclaiming it as proof that these cameras are *as good* as 35mm. Even when the actual visible evidence is that it's not. People just want to believe what they want. And I bet 99% of the posters here won't have a $2000 an hour colour correction system AND even more importantly, an experienced colourist to eek every last pixel out of the footage....
I'm a realist. I've shot arguably Australia's first free to air TV drama using RED. I used a 5D on a cooking show that went to air before most had heard of them.
They are just tools....just tools, and this *test* is smoke and mirrors to make people feel better about buying zuccuto gear for their game changer cameras.
As a DP, It's my job to know the tools, not be wedded or driven by them. They are a means to an end and that's why I still don't own a single camera.
Anyone who says "film is dead" is just buying into a ridiculous gear pissing match over numbers and statistics.
Even in stills, film is actually not dead. Sure, most people choose not to use it, but there are plenty who still do. Usually it's the fine artists rather than commercial photographers.
It's like saying vinyl is dead. Well they are actually not are they ? Diehards still use them. Yes they make up a small minority of the total music market. But they haven't actually gone away. It's not dead.
This continued ridiculous clamouring to pronounce film being dead speaks volumes about the person making such pronouncements. It says they care more about specs than using their eyes. It says that they care more about the emotional choice to NOT shoot film and desperately want the reassurance that their chosen alternative is as good as film.
Heaven forbid we should just get on with making the most out of whichever camera we determine to be the most appropriate for the job. Focus on making the most out of the tools you have rather than trying to make it look like another format.
jb
Last edited:
There is one other place where DSLR's beat 35mm film, and that is high ISO's. Anything over 500 ISO in film is going to be far grainier and not hold the same kind of detail and latitude as the DSLR's. This is not a small thing in the sense that this also means less lights and and logistical considerations in some situations. Combine this with the speed of many DSLR lenses (especially some of the older manual focus ones) and you have the possibility of a much lighter more spontaneous form of narrative.
Chris Light
Veteran
post of the f*cking year as far as this argument goes.:beer:
Ben_B
Veteran
Agreed. Plus anyone who said film or even proper video cameras is/are dead has never pointed an HDSLR at an actor in front of say, some bamboo slat blinds, in a deep DOF shot and tried to film a scene. Moiré!!!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Actually, you're not confused, you're right -- your observations are spot-on.
However, the SLRs can LOOK a lot sharper than they really are, due to the aliasing. Read the "aliasing" article in the articles section, and all should become clear.