Jump to content


Photo

Comparison of 7D and RED ...


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 14 June 2010 - 03:30 AM

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!

Posted Image

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:
  • 0

#2 J Bernard Vallon

J Bernard Vallon

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 14 June 2010 - 05:20 PM

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....mm_RPP_lens.jpg
http://www.jbvmedia...._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.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19760 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 June 2010 - 07:29 PM

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.
  • 0

#4 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 14 June 2010 - 07:32 PM

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'...
  • 0

#5 jacob thomas

jacob thomas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 June 2010 - 10:19 PM

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 by jacob thomas, 14 June 2010 - 10:20 PM.

  • 0

#6 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 14 June 2010 - 11:02 PM

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

Oh indeed, it does show you something.

Edited by Keith Walters, 14 June 2010 - 11:02 PM.

  • 0

#7 keidrych wasley

keidrych wasley

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 26 June 2010 - 02:33 PM

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.
  • 0

#8 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 June 2010 - 05:16 PM

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.
  • 0

#9 Peter Moretti

Peter Moretti
  • Sustaining Members
  • 306 posts
  • Other
  • Sherman Oaks, CA

Posted 30 June 2010 - 04:26 AM

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.
  • 0

#10 Gunleik Groven

Gunleik Groven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 11 July 2010 - 09:58 AM

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?
  • 0


Opal

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Technodolly

Tai Audio

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Glidecam

CineLab

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Tai Audio

Visual Products

CineTape

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam