5d projected on the Big Screen

[Marc Shap]

Just want to know the pros and cons of digitally projecting 5d footage on the big screen, and doing a 35mm film out from the 5d footage. How would this compare to a RED?

 

Any help/insight is appreciated.

 

Marc

[Jimmy Hammond]

Just want to know the pros and cons of digitally projecting 5d footage on the big screen, and doing a 35mm film out from the 5d footage. How would this compare to a RED?

 

Any help/insight is appreciated.

 

Marc

 

 

Hey Marc, how are ya buddy. I was wondering the exact same thing. A producer is concerned that submitting an HDCAM transfer for film festivals might not hold up compared to even an F900. If any one has any insight please fill us in???

[Ryan De Franco]

The biggest issue with DSLR projection is artifacts. Our 5Ds ignore most of the light infrormation gathered by the sensor when recording motion. This line skipping--combined with a relatively weak codec that doesn't record individual frames--means any rapid or complex motion will turn to mud (messy pixels, loss of detail, etc). Then there's the moire that pops up with fine textures like wood or fabric.

 

What might not be noticable on a computer might become garish on a massive cinema screen. Waves, for example, look just fine in camera but look awful on larger displays.

 

By contrast, Red footage is mostly free of such artifacts. When you downconvert your 4k footage for 1080 projection, 4 pixels are combined into one, further reducing digital errors and improving color rendition. Or so they say.

 

On the other hand, the average audience might not even notice DSLR artifacts. A strong story, and all the minor issues don't even catch the eye. One thing i'd be careful with is bright flashes that dominate the frame (like photo strobes). The rolling shutter will reproduce a flash that only shows up in 1/3 or 2/3 of the frame.

 

I've seen 5D footage on a 25' screen that looks amazing, and I've seen footage shot with the same camera that shows all the hallmarks of poor digital acquisition. If you're aware of the limitations, you should get away with it.

 

Good luck!

[James Martin]

I watched some 5D footage projected back-to-back with some F900 footage recently. The 5D footage was not as bad as I had thought, however it was a relatively small screen (25 foot or so). The major issues were simple ones like poor exposure and focus. The F900 footage on the same screen, under same conditions, looked immaculate. HOWEVER, at home, when played on my 24" computer monitor, which is not very forgiving, there are many artifacts in the 5D footage that are not in the F900 footage, so it is possible that certain transfers/projectors/screens may not be as forgiving as the ones I have seen.

 

I own a 5D Mk2 and an F900, so feel that I can make these judgements (relatively) free of bias. I do admit that my time with the 5D has been very brief, but long enough to know which camera I prefer!

[Phil Rhodes]

I have heard horror stories of 5D stuff being rejected for aliasing, so tread carefully. It's tough to fix, much tougher than compression artefacts.

 

 

The problem with trying to QC stuff yourself is really one of expectations. Because I am a complete bastard, I don't tend to have too many problems as I'll likely pick stuff up at the online stage. Obviously producers don't appreciate this, they'd much rather have smoke blown into places where smoke shouldn't be blown so they feel good, then spend much more money redoing things after the fact.

 

However, if you're posting your own stuff, it's best to develop a sharp eye for problems and fix them early. If you aren't confident of your ability to do this, well, you hire a QC guy.

 

 

P

[Guest Roland Zagonyi]

I haven't personally seen the 5d mark ii footage on a big screen, but I had a conversation about it with the Hungarian cinematographer András Nagy. He told me that the footage he has seen wasn't that good, but that it holds up much better with an anamorphic adapter and post-production squeeze.

 

I'm at a crossroad right now deciding whether or not to sell my equipment, but if I don't, I'll buy an anamorphic adapter, do a test shoot with/without it, project both onto a big screen and write out the results here (and give the original footage to anybody else who wants to give it a try).

Edited October 15, 2010 by Roland Zagonyi

[Sunil Prem]

Just want to know the pros and cons of digitally projecting 5d footage on the big screen, and doing a 35mm film out from the 5d footage. How would this compare to a RED?

 

Any help/insight is appreciated.

 

Marc

Hi ,I think this video will tell you everything about DSLR footage and film footage,watch it

episode 3 u can watch here

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

thanks

[Chris Keth]

It depends on the content. I did a documentary where we tested a 5d and a 7d as extra cameras for interviews and they performed very well in that setting. The A and B cameras were 416s loaded with 7217 and the DSLRs projected next to the S16 pretty admirably since they were static shots. As soon as we introduced camera movement beyond a creep dolly it would have all fallen apart, though.