can i match quality resolution 5D or 7D camera with super 16

[vijay veluvolu]

i am a film student,next 4 weeks i am going to make a music video,in that i want to use super 16 and 5D or 7D ,

 

 

1.can i match quality resolution

 

2. i want to use in early morning evening shots only in natural light .(5D or 7D)

 

Both 5D and 7D which one is better

Edited November 8, 2010 by vijay veluvolu

[K Borowski]

Maybe you meant it this way, but either the 5D or 7D has more native resolution than S16. However, you are probably dealing with a 1080p down-res'ed file off the chip.

 

Personally, I wouldn't like switching from, say 500T film to a DSLR image. Of course, many music videos embrace the aesthetic of images that aren't matched from shot to shot, so this could work for you.

[Brian Drysdale]

I guess the resolution may depend on which Super 16 stock you're using. The HD DSLRs tend not to shine on the sheer resolution figures, but on other factors that create images that are attractive to the eye.

 

Super 16 should be fine at those early hours, although you'd need the fast stocks if wanting a full exposure, rather than a early morning/evening look. It's surprising how daring you can be with film.

[stevie wara]

I think you will find that 16mm properly exposed will kick the crap out of anything a 5d or 7d can produce. This is not to say that the dslrs cannot produce great images, which they can, but really, resolution and dynamic range wise, there is no contest. That's just my humble opinion. And KB is seriously misinformed if he thinks a 7d can offer more "native" resolution than s16.

Edited November 27, 2010 by stevie wara

[Phil Rhodes]

The stills from a 7D are probably (well, definitely) sharper than 16. The video is... well. It's sharper than some 16 I've shot, which is to say it's sharper than 16 which has something wrong with it. Certainly super 16 has the potential to outdo a 7D, but actually achieving that is quite difficult.

 

I think also the 16 will appear noisier, certainly at equivalent ISO above 200, if only because these DSLRs are absolutely whisper quiet and film will always have grain.

 

P

[K Borowski]

And KB is seriously misinformed if he thinks a 7d can offer more "native" resolution than s16.

 

If you are talking about 7285 directly projected, then sure, there is plenty of resolution there. '19 pushed a stop, done with a questionable transfer will NOT look better than a 5D or 7D.

 

What do I have to do to be "informed," other than have an HD set that has content shot in both of these formats, '19 with a questioble transfer and DSLR?

 

 

I don't know what you mean by "native" resolution. Since neither S16 nor DSLR material makes it to the television monitor or movie theatre screen without going through some sort of conversion (even if you want to argue that optical printing, done by practically no one produces better results with S16 than a scan), native resolution is irrelevant when talking about a real world product that more than three people can watch. Even if you want to argue that there is a conspiracy out there to make S16 look bad, a DSLR chip HANDILY out-resolves S16. It handily outresolves S35 4-perf. too. That isn't opinion, it's fact; these DSLRs have chips that compete for resolution with a 35mm still frame. :)

[Brian Rose]

Viljay, in your original post, it wasn't quite clear: do you have four weeks til shooting starts, or is this shoot over four weeks?

 

If you indeed have four weeks before starting production, I'd say if you started now, you'd have time to do some camera tests and get the results back. Because that's the only surefire way of knowing what's gonna happen.

 

The answers you'll get from us will (and are) across the board, and have many variables: film stock, processing methods, quality of the transfer...there are so many variables that you really should try it out with some tests, best as you can replicating the production and post production workflows and seeing how the material compares. You may make some nice discoveries that will save you many headaches.

 

Something else I'd strongly advise: if you're going to mix formats, make sure to use the same lenses. Get an adapter, and use the same 35mms for your DLSR and 16mm. If you mix lenses and focal lengths and all that, it'll make cutting the material together that much harder.

 

BR

[K Borowski]

Something else to consider: The DOF of a 5- or 7D will be far shallower than S16.

 

 

If you want to mitigate this, I'd recommend you shoot at least three or four stops down from what you're shooting at with S16 to make it match better. Again, in the interest of matching, I'd shoot with the slowest stock I could light for in this situation, like 50D or 100T.

[stevie wara]

And KB is seriously misinformed if he thinks a 7d can offer more "native" resolution than s16.

 

 

If you are talking about 7285 directly projected, then sure, there is plenty of resolution there. '19 pushed a stop, done with a questionable transfer will NOT look better than a 5D or 7D.

 

What do I have to do to be "informed," other than have an HD set that has content shot in both of these formats, '19 with a questioble transfer and DSLR?

 

 

I don't know what you mean by "native" resolution. Since neither S16 nor DSLR material makes it to the television monitor or movie theatre screen without going through some sort of conversion (even if you want to argue that optical printing, done by practically no one produces better results with S16 than a scan), native resolution is irrelevant when talking about a real world product that more than three people can watch. Even if you want to argue that there is a conspiracy out there to make S16 look bad, a DSLR chip HANDILY out-resolves S16. It handily outresolves S35 4-perf. too. That isn't opinion, it's fact; these DSLRs have chips that compete for resolution with a 35mm still frame. :)

 

Well I don't know what you mean by "native" either. I only used "native" because you did first without saying what you meant by "native". I'm possibly not even sure what I meant by "native". But after all, whatever. The OP is only talking about a music video, so really non of these formats are going to be super stressed. Some music videos show horrendous amounts of moire off the hdslrs but no one really notices as it is often hidden by quick cutting or just low attention spans. You have a point with shallow dof, but what a relief it would be to see some deeper focus every now and then. Everyone's jumped on the super-shallow freight train it seems to the point that it's becoming nauseating. 5d is so shallow that DPs have to pour on more light just to get some reasonable depth. My personal point of comparison comes from actual 2k film scans transcoded to 10 bit cineform hds vs canon mvi h.264s transcoded to 10 bit cineforms as well. I find the 7d originated files are pretty much crippled by the prior h.264 compressions. The film originated files however are awesome. The 7ds shine when the DP gets it right or very close at capture. You can be a full 2 stops or more off with film and still fully recover. I wonder if you are just looking at the stills resolution figures to form your opinion or if you are taking into account the line-skipping losses of detail. I didn't really consider grain at all since I don't view it as a negative, and certainly not as noise as I think PR has suggested. But if you all want to make grain an issue then possibly you are right about all of this.

 

And to PR, hahaha, had a good laugh when you said that a 7d is "sharper than 16 which has something wrong with it." :)

Edited November 29, 2010 by stevie wara

[stevie wara]

Something else to consider: The DOF of a 5- or 7D will be far shallower than S16.

 

Have you seen this thread?

 

It might be that the only real advantage of a 7d is wider dof options.

 

But to say that it "handily" out-resolves 16mm is probably just a fantasy.

Edited November 30, 2010 by stevie wara

[Timothy Bird]

I'm sure you won't have a problem if you put a grain filter on the 7D or 5D footage in post and color correct it to match the grain and color of your S16 it is not completely the same but it will trick the eye enough for the audience not to realize.

[John Brawley]

Maybe you meant it this way, but either the 5D or 7D has more native resolution than S16. However, you are probably dealing with a 1080p down-res'ed file off the chip.

 

 

 

 

I think for HD, you'd find a Super 16 scan would have more resolution captured. Don't forget that the Canons'a are line skipping and shedding a lot of resolution to create their 1920x1080 image. So, while it has a high resolution sensor, and it records a 1920x1080 quicktime, if you point it at a resolution chart you won'tt get anywhere near that resolution.

 

The Super 16 I suspect would have more *recorded* resolution.

 

jb

[Travis Hoffman]

If you guys want an example of those formats mixed. Check out "Black Swan".

 

Matty Libatique shot majority of the film on S16 and all the subway stuff was shot with 7D.

[Vincent Sweeney]

If you guys want an example of those formats mixed. Check out "Black Swan".

 

Matty Libatique shot majority of the film on S16 and all the subway stuff was shot with 7D.

 

And there you could see where the SLR lacked enough color depth to keep up with the S16, also keep in mind that this is with high-end grading resources. However under different lighting conditions it might be harder to tell.