Jump to content

Reduser.com Bans the "word" 7D


Guest Trevor Swaim
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Trevor Swaim

Seems old Jannard has no problem rocking boats but cries like a baby if his boat gets rocked. If you type 7D on the reduser forums the forum software will change it to "betacam".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Sustaining Member
Seems old Jannard has no problem rocking boats but cries like a baby if his boat gets rocked. If you type 7D on the reduser forums the forum software will change it to "betacam".

 

 

Reveloutions never go quite the way people expect, so this years cool is the 7D or the even cheaper 550D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canon 7D produces unacceptable line skipping aliasing artifacts that Jim Jannard could have never gotten away with if he introduced a simular camera. Canon could have easily fixed the problem by limiting the sensor to 8 megapixels and properly scaling the image down to 2 megapixels for video output. However since there is no market for an 8 megapixel still camera Canon chose to use line skipping rather than scaling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

I just attended RAWwork's HDSLR seminar and have to say, RED may start losing more business in the low budget world, where it mostly sits, based on what I saw. It has already lost out to being rented in at least three projects that I know of to SLR's and since 99% of projects have no reason to "shoot 4K", it's bound to only get more popular.

 

While the cameras, in their current state, have several drawbacks, the footage in the theater would be very hard to argue as not being professional quality or in many situations, on par with the RED stuff (or whatever digital camera). Yes they are thin files but don't speak too fast until you see footage that is posted properly. Bob Primes used the phrase "Blown away" more than once when he was speaking of the SLR tests he was asked to do. I think most agreed with that.

 

It would be interesting to have some uninformed Cinematographer's attend a screening and mix footage to see if anyone could spot what was DSLR and what was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

I think that Red with the new MX upgrade still has a substantial middle ground between Canon and Arri. They've sold a huge installed base very quickly, and should be a significant player farther into the future than I can see.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just attended RAWwork's HDSLR seminar and have to say, RED may start losing more business in the low budget world, where it mostly sits, based on what I saw. It has already lost out to being rented in at least three projects that I know of to SLR's and since 99% of projects have no reason to "shoot 4K", it's bound to only get more popular.

 

While the cameras, in their current state, have several drawbacks, the footage in the theater would be very hard to argue as not being professional quality or in many situations, on par with the RED stuff (or whatever digital camera). Yes they are thin files but don't speak too fast until you see footage that is posted properly. Bob Primes used the phrase "Blown away" more than once when he was speaking of the SLR tests he was asked to do. I think most agreed with that.

 

Sony and Panasonic have announced large sensor cameras that could address the issues with the HD DSLRs. However, they won't be in the same price bracket as the 7D, although quite possibly in the 5D rigged out for video range. Quite a lot of the material shot with the DSLR cameras is for the web, so not needing to withstand viewing in the front rows of a theatre.

 

The RED One was never really that low a budget, kitted out it really seemed to be placed between the Digibeta and the HDCAM price range, it was never Z1 or HVX 200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

A couple of times on "Dr Who Confidential" (The 15 min "making of" segment the ABC tack on the end of Dr Who episodes here presumably to fill up the space that would be taken up by commercials), I've noticed that on their green-screen work they were using what looks like some sort of DSLR camera with a curly cord attached.

Does anybody know what that's about?The camera is always in silhouette, so you can't really see any details.

I haven't seen them using a Betacam on a green screen set, although admittedly you only get short glimpses.

I must do an HD recording next Sunday and see if I can catch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
I

While the cameras, in their current state, have several drawbacks, the footage in the theater would be very hard to argue as not being professional quality or in many situations, on par with the RED stuff (or whatever digital camera). Yes they are thin files but don't speak too fast until you see footage that is posted properly. Bob Primes used the phrase "Blown away" more than once when he was speaking of the SLR tests he was asked to do. I think most agreed with that.

You've only got to look at the 640 x 480 movie quality you get out of modern cheap mass-market digital cameras. The more recent ones completely blow away what you used to get from $1,000+ home video outfits a generation ago. Resolution is usually a lot better, colour massively so.

From there it's hardly a stretch that a more expensive still camera is going to produce quite acceptable HD video.

What would really set the cat among the pigeons would be a DSLR with switchable optical low-pass filtering. Watch this space....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of times on "Dr Who Confidential" (The 15 min "making of" segment the ABC tack on the end of Dr Who episodes here presumably to fill up the space that would be taken up by commercials), I've noticed that on their green-screen work they were using what looks like some sort of DSLR camera with a curly cord attached.

 

They're currently shooting Dr Who on F35s, it could be a just a specialised camera head going to Disk. It's unlikely they'd be shooting green screen with DSLRs. A friend of mine edits DR Who, so I'll check with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
Then it's a promotion...

Yeah, what flavour of Betacam is he talking about?

In any case, most of the clowns who denigrate Betacam simply have no idea how good a system it actually was/is.

Even the old Oxide-tape machines from over 20 years ago could still produce damned fine images.

Mostly of what you see these days is multi-generation removed copies of the original.

Or are they talking about HDCAM?

I walked past a group of people shooting a commercial on one of those just this morning on the way to work :rolleyes:

Somebody on REDuser actually said that because of the MX sensor HDCAM systems now have zero value.

If anybody out there's got any F900's or similar I'll give you a couple of hundred bucks for them, as long as they're clean and have all the accessories :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
They're currently shooting Dr Who on F35s, i

No wonder the pictures are so good!

I can't believe they did the first seasons on Standard Definition, though.

It just falls apart on a big screen, particularly the Digital Effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No wonder the pictures are so good!

I can't believe they did the first seasons on Standard Definition, though.

It just falls apart on a big screen, particularly the Digital Effects.

 

Here's what my friend said:

 

"They don't use a stills camera for green screen live action. It is always Sony f35 with a SRW recorder at 4:4:4 attached. The stills camera is used by the effects guys to shoot High Dynamic Range, textures and mapping stuff for the effects in post. If it was the Angels story in particular a lot of stills where taken of the costumed folk so that they could make accurate 3d CGI models and have good textures."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
"They don't use a stills camera for green screen live action. It is always Sony f35 with a SRW recorder at 4:4:4 attached.

Excellent information, thank you.

Wow, pretty top drawer stuff for a UK production.

Currently I don't think you could do much better unless of course you used that celluloid stuff!

 

Does your friend have any information on why they didn't use the you-know-what?

(Apart from rendering taking longer than film processing/scanning, the lack of a full HD live output, the sh!thouse chrominance resolution, the overly complex Post workflow etc :rolleyes: )

 

I suppose if 4:2:2 1080P is the new VHS, 4:4:4 1080P must be the new S-VHS... :lol: :P :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just attended RAWwork's HDSLR seminar and have to say, RED may start losing more business in the low budget world, where it mostly sits, based on what I saw. It has already lost out to being rented in at least three projects that I know of to SLR's and since 99% of projects have no reason to "shoot 4K", it's bound to only get more popular.

 

While the cameras, in their current state, have several drawbacks, the footage in the theater would be very hard to argue as not being professional quality or in many situations, on par with the RED stuff (or whatever digital camera). Yes they are thin files but don't speak too fast until you see footage that is posted properly. Bob Primes used the phrase "Blown away" more than once when he was speaking of the SLR tests he was asked to do. I think most agreed with that.

 

It would be interesting to have some uninformed Cinematographer's attend a screening and mix footage to see if anyone could spot what was DSLR and what was not.

 

 

I attended the seminar too and was impressed with the projected screenings downstairs and with Shane's war "sizzle reel" which, he said, was shot with a variety of formats. Granted, we weren't viewing that piece in pristine conditions, but if anything, that made the presentation that much better. I talked to a few people after seeing it and no one could tell what camera captured which shots which is a testament to two things: one, the DSLR (5 and 7, I believe) cut in just fine with the other footage from different cameras... and two, when the story is good and compelling, the audience isn't going to sit and complain if there is "line skipping" or whatever else technofiles like to discuss.

 

A person could shoot a sh**ty movie in IMAX and it would still be a sh**ty movie. A different person could shoot a great story in 8mm or Betacam and it would get that person a three picture deal.

 

Betacams are still out there being used extensively and HDCAM is 99.9% of what my clients use everyday for many reasons, so I'm not quite sure why those formats deserve any singling out as "bad." The DSLR technology may not be "perfect," though I'm not sure what "perfect" actually means since one person's "perfect" could cause someone else problems. The DSLR is just another tool in the arsenal and a pretty good one at that. Look at it this way, until someone learns how to plug a recorder into the human eye, aren't all formats imperfect?

Edited by Brian Dzyak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, pretty top drawer stuff for a UK production.
I beg your pardon? :o

 

And a DSLR for green screen? No way guys! Isn't the chroma sub-sampling on the 5D something like 4:2:0 ? You need much better color resolution to key effectively. On the other hand, for background plates they're used extensively on

.

 

I'm no 5D/7D fanboi, and will hold off till the next generation. But I am very impressed by what I've seen so far, and genuinely excited by the prospect of what is to come. Zacuto did an interesting comparison of the 5D and film, though their tests are virtually still images and thus don't show up the movement artefacts. At the end of the day 'the proof is in the pudding' and working within the limitations it is possible to create something very impressive, like "The Last 3 Minutes" shot by Shane Hurlbut. Very interesting making of video here. I like the way he throws the camera in the air! All that said, I think the 7D is actually the better camera so far for the uses to which these are generally put. For starters, the infamous 'shearing' is less apparent - I think because the chip is smaller.

 

Nice video

about the Magic Lantern firmware hack. Watch the way the guy on the left beams when the other guy says "...and while we were all complaining about the shortcomings, you just went ahead and fixed them!" :D

 

I was in a rental house last week (looking over a RED as it happens) and they told me that indeed the RED had lost of lot of custom to 5D/7D users. So back to this thread's topic - there's an amusing RedUser thread about the 7D/betacam thing here :lol:

 

I've noticed a lot of people are getting upset by the arrogance that comes from the RED fans, and I wonder if RED may choose to tone it down a bit once the likes of Sony and Canon really get their teeth into launching some serious competition. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DSLR is just another tool in the arsenal

Absolutely! I've been on plenty of 35mm shoots where we mixed Arri and Mitchell cameras for different uses. Was any one dumb enough to say that one was 'better' than the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
............. Bob Primes used the phrase "Blown away" more than once when he was speaking of the SLR tests he was asked to do. I think most agreed with that.

 

I had the incredible luck to run into Bob while waiting for a Monorail at the Mirage stop and chatted with him on the ride, and walk into the Convention Center. He's a very good example of a "been there, done that" seasoned professional who has adopted the HDSLR technology with open arms. He knows the drawbacks and pitfalls but he also is staying at the cutting (bleeding?) edge as these cameras evolve in hardware, production technique, and post. He's in constant communication with the boys in the backrooms developing new toys and tweaks for the cameras. Damn those NDA's.

 

PS: At the risk of sounding like a stuffed shirt, Bob is a member of the ASC and it's customary to add those initials to the member's names. It's quite an honor to be invited to membership and I think that needs to be acknowledged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does your friend have any information on why they didn't use the you-know-what?

(Apart from rendering taking longer than film processing/scanning, the lack of a full HD live output, the sh!thouse chrominance resolution, the overly complex Post workflow etc :rolleyes: )

 

 

Yes, it was the rendering time on their tight schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

This may be a brilliant idea. Why don't we come up with a list of replacement words for every other form of cinema technology and flood REDuser with discussions using the words. I think there are more than enough words for French pastry to cover the lexicon:

 

"The bichon au citron in the new upgrade of the gougère is more than 4canelé! I don't care what that guy, Phil Profiterole, over at C.com says!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that original version HDCam, or the newer SR? We're mostly SR these days.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

 

I mostly have 900/3 and 900R though the 650F shows up in my truck from time to time as well as the XDCAM. That's for my clients which do not typically go to projection (they are for broadcast and/or DVD and/or internet use). When I show up on a set where someone is shooting a narrative using digital acquisition, it is almost always either a Genesis or F23. Otherwise, for most feature sets I've been on lately, it's still Panaflex shooting 35mm with a smattering of Panavised Arri's to do the speed or stunt work. I did finally see REDs being used on one pilot a month or so back, but that's about as far from the "norm" that I've seen studio/network projects go off the beaten track...so far.

 

Like I said, people can invest time into discussing the nitty gritty of "bayer" and "line skipping" or whatever other technogeek details they want to, but when it comes down to it, these are all just boxes with holes in them designed to capture an image. We choose the one that fits our situation, budget, delivery requirements... we do our best within parameters of that particular "box" and then invoice and hope that the check clears. The audience (or the Executives, for that matter) doesn't give a crap about whether the movie was shot with a D5 or a D7 or a RED or an F950 or with 35mm (that went DI anyway). They just want to be entertained and it's our job to pick the tool in the arsenal that can best capture the images given the parameters we have to work within at any given time.

 

 

In other news:

 

Jim's a good guy and he has a product he believes in and has invested a lot of time and money into. Why is anyone surprised if he or others at his site are a bit protective of the company and the product? If someone wants to talk about products without "interference" from a Corporation that makes the product, then why go to that Corporation's forum in the first place? It's akin to asking a political party to go into depth regarding its faults and expecting a full answer. I would expect the same thing from Panavision or Arri or Moviecam or Sony or Canon if any of them had similar forums. If someone wishes to discuss the pros and cons of a piece of gear, then you do it in a neutral place like this (cinematography.com or cinematography.net), instead of bagging on someone who is trying to defend and protect his hard work and investment. I see people bagging on DSLR technology because it skips lines.... but big f'ing deal! Sure, it has it's own technical parameters that a Cameraman has to learn and learn to work within, but just like RED or nearly any other non-consumer technology, it cuts together with other formats really well. I guess what I'm trying to understand is the animosity expressed toward any one format (and in some people's cases, multiple formats) as if there was only one "perfect" platform and all the rest are inherently inferior. The bottom line is that we use the tools necessary to tell the story within the parameters we are given (budget, schedule, delivery, etc) and the audience doesn't give a sh** about line skipping or anything else it takes to get that image onto a screen in their theater or living room. They just want to be entertained and/or informed. If your camera captures those things, then you've done your job. If you couldn't squeeze an F35 or a Platinum or a RED into a corner and you missed THE shot, then maybe it's time to at least consider that there are different tools out there designed for different situations that can help us all do our jobs better.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
This may be a brilliant idea. Why don't we come up with a list of replacement words for every other form of cinema technology and flood REDuser with discussions using the words. I think there are more than enough words for French pastry to cover the lexicon:

 

"The bichon au citron in the new upgrade of the gougère is more than 4canelé! I don't care what that guy, Phil Profiterole, over at C.com says!"

To say nothing of that beastly Richard agneau de rôti avec la crème glacée de bourrage et de truffe et le gâteau mousseline pour le dessert avec arqué et des cigares pour finir, from Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Forum Sponsors

CineLab

FJS International

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Film Gears

VidGear.com - Broadcast Video Warehouse

Serious Gear

Visual Products

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...