Comparison of 7D and RED ...

[Keith Walters]

There's a thread over on Reduser where J.Bernard Fallon shows a couple of frame grabs comparing the Canon 7D with a Red with the new sensor: "Same time same place same lights."

 

These are the two frames in question, shrunken to a manageable size but, apart from labelling them, otherwise untouched. (Obviously available resolution is no longer visible, but that's not the issue).

 

Might be same time same place, but clearly neither the framing nor the lighting are the same!

 

A resolution chart is supposed to occupy the same percentage of available imaging area to be valid. My cellphone camera will out-rez a RED if I shoot a chart with it from three feet away and the RED from 30 feet away!

 

 

What baffles me is I seem to be the only one who's noticed this.

It reminds me of all the iPad ads on billboards and elsewhere that use completely screwed up perspective and depth of field to suggest that the iPad is a lot bigger than it actually is. :rolleyes:

[J Bernard Vallon]

e).

 

Might be same time same place, but clearly neither the framing nor the lighting are the same!

 

 

 

Hey Keith,

I think this is a little unfair. Firstly, the original full-res images are still available, and on my website:

 

http://www.jbvmedia.com/tests/R1_25mm_RPP_lens.jpg

http://www.jbvmedia.com/tests/7d_25mm_zeiss_lens.jpg

 

The framing is a little left on one of them, a thousand pardons. Also, on this lens I measured distance to the charts, and sensor size on the 7d doesnt ::quite:: match the M chip, so the frame size is off. Also my mistake. But as you can see from the full-res versions, the purpose of this test wasn't to measure objective resolution of either camera, that's pretty well documented. It was just a straight up comparison to show where artifacting begins on both cameras, and what that looks like subjectively. A lot of people have told me it's very helpful, I'll post more over at reduser.

 

The lighting is identical, the exposure is as well: 250 ASA @2.8 1/48 on both cameras. The 7d appears a little lighter, which is because the in-camera processing in the 7d boosts the mids a bit. Next time i'll compensate the R3d to match.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the test is just fine for showing you something. Your only "mistake" was throwing in a resolution chart into the shot that was not "correctly" shot, which is hardly unusual. Some people toss in a newspaper or dollar bill for similar reasons, just to have some fine lines in the frame.

 

I've shot similar tests and the color mismatch is inevitable with cameras that record color & gamma in such different ways.

[Keith Walters]

 

 

The lighting is identical...

Then why is the shadow of that pole (where it says "7D") in a completely different place and considerably less blurry than in the RED version.

 

Look, nobody seriously expects the 7D to have as much resolution as the RED, but you're hardly going to impress anybody with a slipshod test like that.

Just sayin'...

[jacob thomas]

Then why is the shadow of that pole (where it says "7D") in a completely different place and considerably less blurry than in the RED version.

 

Look, nobody seriously expects the 7D to have as much resolution as the RED, but you're hardly going to impress anybody with a slipshod test like that.

Just sayin'...

 

Thanks Keith for bringing this slipshop test to the attention of the forum. May the rain of condescension fall heavily on the poor fool who tried to post something somewhere that tried to be useful information about the red camera. If only Jim Jannard had come out of "sick leave" to discuss it on cinematography.net then it would be truly interesting information. :rolleyes:

 

Just sayin'...

 

[This is a useful quick test despite it's short comings. I don't know about the rest of the world but here the 7d (with and without pl modification) is being used in addition to the red and instead of the red so it's nice to see some "direct" comparisons.]

Edited June 15, 2010 by jacob thomas

[Keith Walters]

I think the test is just fine for showing you something.

Oh indeed, it does show you something.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Keith Walters

[keidrych wasley]

Then why is the shadow of that pole (where it says "7D") in a completely different place and considerably less blurry than in the RED version.

 

Look, nobody seriously expects the 7D to have as much resolution as the RED, but you're hardly going to impress anybody with a slipshod test like that.

Just sayin'...

 

the lighting is in the same place. If you look at the background and not the foreground you can see the shadows are in exactly the same place on that window frame type thing. The only reason it appears different is because of the angle and placement of the camera.

[John Sprung]

The lighting is identical, the exposure is as well: 250 ASA @2.8 1/48 on both cameras. The 7d appears a little lighter, which is because the in-camera processing in the 7d boosts the mids a bit. Next time i'll compensate the R3d to match.

 

Bracketing on both would be nice to see. To me, density is the big difference between them, which makes other comparisons difficult.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Peter Moretti]

Then why is the shadow of that pole (where it says "7D") in a completely different place and considerably less blurry than in the RED version.

 

Look, nobody seriously expects the 7D to have as much resolution as the RED, but you're hardly going to impress anybody with a slipshod test like that.

Just sayin'...

 

I don't think he's trying to impress anyone. He explained the test and its potential value. Why you have to impute to him some desire to impress people is beyond me.

[Gunleik Groven]

I cannot see anything here I gaven't seen in the 5D and M RED1.

 

What's the big conspiracy?

 

That we cannot see jello?