With the 7D You Might Just Be Forced to Use Your Filmmaking

In my announcement day post I made an argument in favor of the new Canon 7D, a camera I haven’t even seen or used, and for which there is no Reverie video to erase all doubts about its capabilities. For balance, here’s the real quick case against the 7D.

I said of the 5D Mark II that “Buttons and features and resolution charts just had their asses handed to them by sex appeal.” In other words, the video that comes out of the 5D Mark II can be so emotionally stimulating that we forgive its rather egregious shortcomings.

The 7D has many, but not all of the same shortcomings as the 5D Mark II. And while an APS-C sensor is lovely for filmmaking, in that it is so similar to a Super 35 film frame, another way of looking at the 7D sensor is that it is an adequate size for filmmaking, where the 5D’s is excessive.

The 5D Mark II’s excessive sensor size allows excessive sex appeal (in the form of shallow DOF). Enough, for some, to outweigh its downsides.

The 7D’s about-right sensor size means that its shortcomings, such as rolling shutter, poor resolution, excessive compression, and video-as-afterthought features and ergonomics, will stand out much more than they have with the 5D.

You can’t drench your 7D shots in sultry shallow DOF delight quite as easily as you can with the 5D.

So you might actually have to start doing some filmmaking.

The 5D has prompted a ton of “beauty reels,” but not many narrative films. I’m guilty of this too, calling my first 5D short a “camera test” to let myself off the hook for not telling a story. Maybe the 7D, with its more conservative sensor size, will make it less tempting to create another seven-minute boke-porn reel (bokake?), and remind people that audiences want to know what happens next, not what’s going to be marvelously out of focus in the background next.

Canon 7D

I wonder if someday, maybe when I climb both Mount Fuji and Yellow Mountain in the same week, I will understand how Canon names their SLR bodies.

Today Canon announced the EOS 7D. The name makes it sound like the 5D, but it is decidedly unlike it. It is vastly superior in every way, except in pixel count, and by a very significant difference in sensor size. The 7D is an APS-C body, with a crop factor of 1.6.

The main reason you’re reading about the 7D here is that it records HD video. Canon has done with the 7D what they either could not or would not do with the 5D Mark II: they have included a plethora of useful frame rates (revised, see update below).

• At 1920x1080: 23.976, 24, 29.97, 30
• At 1280x720: 50 and 59.94 (often called 60p)

Check, check, and check. That’s pretty much awesome. I mean, we can dream of 50 and 60 fps at 1080p, but in all fairness those frame rates are usually only found at 720p even on very high-end HD cameras.

Combining that with the same manual control that came at long last to the 5D Mark II, and you have a camera that addresses some of the biggest shortcomings of DSLR cinematography.

Some, but not all. Does the 7D skip lines to create its HD images? Seems so. Is the compression still aggressive and unfriendly to post? Probably. Rolling shutter Jell-O? Likely. And there’s still no video-friendly autofocus such as we find in the Panasonic GH1.

(I know that we classy filmmaking pros are supposed to hate on autofocus, but as I wrote in the DV Rebel’s Guide, the truth is that, for the crew-of-few, it’s a nice option to have. Especially when it’s smart enough to track faces, even specific faces. Focus pulling is hard. Focus pulling while operating a clumsy camera with no focus aides of any kind and a VistaVision-sized chip has had me secretly longing for video autofocus on my 5D Mark II. Focus pulling while swinging your SLR around on a Steadicam Merlin is actually impossible. So please forgive my pining for fingertip on-off smart-as-heck autofocus on my big-chip digital cinema camera.)

What’s missing from the 7D?

• Autofocus (see above).
• Focus-assist while recording, in the form of an edge-detection display overlay.
• Gentle compression (although it seems the 7D’s video bitrate might be a little higher than the 5D’s).
• Funky frame rates. Even Jackie Chan shoots his fight scenes at 22 fps. After a big lunch, he might call for 21 or even 20fps.
• Decoupling shooting frame rate from playback. I’ll probably shoot a ton of stuff at 60p for slow-mo, adding more fun to the workflow puzzle posed by these cameras that crash the video party without a SMPTE invite.
• Video ergonomics. The 7D lacks a flip-out LCD. They call it that because if the 7D had included one, I would have seriously flipped out. I’d like to lose the double chin.
• Quality. The 7D still skips lines to make its HD images, resulting in aliasing and color artifacts. And it still has rolling shutter issues.
• Recordable HD HDMI output.
• Full-frame.

Yeah, let’s talk about that last one. Yesterday, when the 7D’s specs were “translated” from Chinese into English by some sort of cruel, sadistic computer, many people, presumably 5D fans, called its APS-C sensor a “deal breaker.”

The 5D Mark II is the camera I want for shooting stills. How luxurious that it also shoots video, albeit with many limitations. I very publicly hoped Canon would shore up those shortcomings, and they did, some. It did occur to me though, when the Canon/Nikon DSLR arms race grew to encompass video, that my ideal stills rig may not always happen to be my perfect motion rig.

Ever since I treated myself to the original 5D, I’ve been hooked on full-frame. Or should I say re-hooked, as it was the 5D that made digital photography once again as rewarding as it had been with my 35mm Nikormat. I have no interest in a crop-sensor DSLR for shooting stills. But is APS-C an acceptable sensor-size for filmmaking? Ask any RED One owner. Or for that matter, any 35mm motion picture camera owner. APS-C is quite similar to the Super-35 imager size regarded as a holy grail in digital cinema.

APS-C is a perfectly awesome sensor size for filmmaking. The proof is… movies.

But it’s not that simple.

RED, Panavison, Arri, and others have optimized their cinema prime lens offerings for that Super 35 size. Canon’s range of big, expensive primes make sense on their big, expensive, full-frame cameras. Canon’s 24, 35, 50 primes become 38, 56, and 80 equivalencies, respectively. There’s a pricey 14mm that becomes a 22, but nothing between that and the 24(38)mm. To achieve a nice range of focal lengths for 7D filmmaking, you’ll have to use zooms. Since you have to work harder to achieve shallow depth of field, you’ll need expensive, fast-and-wide zooms. The optional kit lens will kill your DOF fetish faster than a $3500 1/4” JVC GY-HM100U. The 16–35mm f/2.8L will be a popular lens for filmmakers—it is to the 7D (roughly) what the beloved 24–70mm f/2.8L is to the 5D.

UPDATE: Several commenters have pointed out that the less-expensive, longer-ranged EF-S 17–55mm f/2.8 IS (27–88mm equivalent) might be an even better choice if you don’t care about compatability with a full-frame body. The 17–55 seems like a terrific lens, but I will stick to lenses that I can use for both video on the 7D and stills on my 5D Mark II.

The twice-as-vast area of the 5D Mark II’s sensor means more flexibility with more lenses, and more control over DOF. Yes, this includes the option to push it to a fetishistic extreme, but also the ability to achieve cinematic DOF with the slower stop of an affordable, flexible zoom lens. So Canon, if complaints about the 7D’s sensor size get annoying, you have no one to blame but yourself. It was you who hooked us on the glorious excess of affordable digital VistaVision filmmaking.

So now there’s a camera that, technically speaking, does everything better than my 5D Mark II. Better autofocus, more stills-per-second, better weather sealing, and better flash control.

But I don’t care. For stills, I’ll stick to my 5D Mark II. Eight-perf VistaVision, what stills folk think of as “full frame,” is the right sensor size for my kind of photography.

But APS-C, roughly the same as four-perf 35mm and what cinema folk consider full-frame, has been well-established as a wonderful size for filmmaking.

So you got me Canon. I’ll probably buy a 7D, and use it for nothing but video. I may have to switch up my lens shopping list, bumping up the 16–35 ahead of the 70–200. At least I can buy lenses that I can use with both my stills rig and my interchangeable lens, variable-frame-rate, Super 35(ish) sensor HD video camera.

That costs $1700.

And that’s the punch line: An interchangeable lens, variable-frame-rate, Super 35(ish) sensor HD video camera for $1700.

Canon, you’re gonna sell a bazillion of these. And you deserve to.

It’s tempting to project right past the 7D and imagine that maybe the rumored successor to the 1Ds line will capture all the new stills improvements of the 7D and combine them with a full-frame sensor. For a mere several thousand dollars you could have it all. Maybe. At some indeterminate time in the future.

Screw that. The 7D costs as much as a nice lens and it’s real.

If you can get your hands on one.

Do I still love my 5D Mark II? Absolutely.

Do I wish Canon would sprinkle it with magic 24p dust? Of course.

Is the 7D the perfect DV Rebel Camera? No. I still recommend a good, solid HD camcorder for filmmaking that doesn’t require fetishistic shallow depth of field. Which, FYI, is almost all filmmaking.

Has DSLR cinematography arrived?

Yes.

As of today (and barring any unforeseen surprises), the answer is yes.

Pre-order your 7D from Amazon now.

I sure did.

Update on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 at 12:13PM by Stu

Chuck Westfall clarified the 7D’s frame rate options on the CML today:

The accurate video frame rates for the EOS 7D are stated correctly in the Canon USA press release: The 30p setting is actually 29.97 fps; 24p setting is actually 23.976 fps; and 25p setting is 25.00 fps. In the 720p and SD video modes, the accurate frame rates are as follows: The 50p setting is 50.00 fps and the 60p setting is 59.94 fps.

He’s right, the press release reads like this:

The EOS 7D Digital SLR camera will record Full HD at 1920 x 1080 pixels in selectable frame rates of 24p (23.976), 25p, or 30p (29.97); 720p HD recording at 50p or 60p (59.94) and SD video at frame rates of 50p or 60p (59.94).

I’ve revised my frame rate list above to match.

The Foundry Un-Rolls Your Shutter

The Foundry have released a $500 plug-in for Nuke and After Effects that attempts to remove rolling shutter artifacting, AKA “Jell-o cam,” from CMOS footage (RED One, Canon HV40, Canon 5D Mark II, etc.). It’s based on a technology demo that they showed at NAB earlier this year.

I’ve tried it, and it works—sometimes. The Foundry are well known for being leaders in the motion estimation field, and they have harnessed their unique experience in this area to attempt the impossible: a per-pixel reconstruction of every part of the frame, where it “would have been” if the shutter had been global open-close instead of read out a line at a time.

When it works, it’s brilliant. But the more motion you have in the frame, the more likely this plug-in, mighty though it may be, will get confused. Unfortunately, when this happens, parts of the image turn to scrambled eggs.

It’s a very similar problem to re-timing 30p footage to 24p actually—in fact, I wish The Foundry had added an option for frame rate conversion to this plug-in. Although, in fairness, I would only rarely use it.

Folks are always asking me about converting 30p to 24. I responded in a thread on the Rebel Café:

…The more motion you have, the more likely it is that any optical flow re-timing system is going to encounter problems.

Not even getting into the combat shots, here’s the Apple Compressor method referenced in Philip’s tutorial failing on one of the more sedate shots in After The Subway:

Now I’m not saying that you won’t occasionally see results from 30-to-24p conversions that look good. The technology is amazing. But while it can work often, it will fail often. And that’s not a workflow. It’s finger-crossing.

On a more subtle note, I don’t think it’s acceptable that every frame of a film should be a computer’s best guess as to what happened between captured frames. The magic of filmmaking comes in part from capturing and revealing a narrow, selective slice of something resonant that happened in front of the lens. When you do these motion-interpolated frame rate conversions, you invite a clever computer algorithm to replace your artfully crafted sliver of reality with a best-guess. I feel (and feel free to disagree, I won’t bother arguing) that this artificiality accumulates to create a feeling of unphotographic plasticness. Screw that. Didn’t you select the 5D because you wanted emotionally resonant imagery? You’d be better off with a true 24p video camera that works with you rather than against you, even if it doesn’t give you the convenient crutch of shallow DOF.

To be crystal clear, that’s Apple Compresser failing to properly estimate the motion in one particular frame when trying to convert from 30p to 24p. Nothing to do with The Foundry or their new plug-in, which actually tackled that same shot quite well.

The Foundry knows that they’ve made a tool to help us limp along while camera manufacturers sort out this CMOS issue. Like any crutch, I wouldn’t plan on leaning too hard on it—but kudos to The Foundry for attacking this problem head on, and making a product out of a technology demo in record time.

Update on Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 2:28PM by Stu

Of course, there will always be some rolling-shutter artifacts that can never be fixed:

Flatten Your 5D

Readers of The DV Rebel’s Guide know that I like to set up my cameras to record as much dynamic range as possible, resulting in a low-contrast, low-saturation “digital negative” that allows more flexibility for grading in post. If you’ve seen any video I’ve shot with the Canon 5D Mark II lately, whether in the Red Giant TV tutorial or on fxphd, you may have wondered how I set up the camera to achieve this. The answer comes in the form of some in-camera Picture Style settings.

I posted a while back about using Canon’s PictureStyleEditor software to create these custom Picture Styles. Since then I have found that the controls in the camera are more than sufficient for creating a more post-friendly look for the 5D’s video files.

Starting with the “Neutral” setting, I make the following modifications:

• Sharpness all the way down
• Contrast all the way down
• Saturation two notches down

Save that as on of your User Defined Picture Styles. Then, optionally, hop over to the Custom Function menu, select C.Fn II: Image, and enable Highlight Tone Priority.

UPDATE: Or don’t. See Update 1 below.

Your settings should look like this:

This will remove the contrasty, video-like tone curve from your future recordings, and eek out a little more highlight detail. Here’s a shot made with the default settings:

Video frame made with Standard Picture Mode, Highlight Tone Priority offHere’s that same shot with the Stu settings:

Prolost Settings

You can see the reduced contrast, the increase in shadow and highlight detail. It’s closer to a raw image with a linear tone curve. Zoom in and you can see the difference in highlight handling on the reflections:

Default settings — harsh, clipped highlightsProlost settings — smooth rolloff in the highlights, increased detailYou can also see the difference in sharpening artifacts. My settings reduce, but do not eliminate, the moiré effect endemic to the 5D Mark II’s line-skipping:

Default settingsProlost settings

You’re going to put all that contrast and most of that sharpening back in post of course, but in your own way, and with more control, and after any shot-to-shot evening out or clever power windows. The ability to design a “zeroed out” or CINE_LIKE-esque Picture Style is one of the things that makes the 5D Mark II’s video dangerously close to usable.

I recommend assigning this setting to one of your Custom notches on the mode dial, so that you don’t inflict these settings on your stills. They don’t affect raw files of course (UPDATE: That’s not actually true, see Update below), but they do get baked into the JPEG previews that accompany those raw files. I have the above settings registered as C3 (along with manual control and a 1/60th shutter), so I can quickly pop into my ideal movie capture settings.

Update on Friday, August 21, 2009 at 9:11AM by Stu

If you do set up your 5D as described above, make sure to do the last step with the custom function so that these settings only affect your video shooting. You probably don’t want to have Highlight Tone Priority on for your stills, especially if you shoot raw. What it does is “push” (reduce) your ISO setting by one stop, causing you to capture a full stop of additional highlight information through no more sophisticated means than simply underexposing. For video and JPEGs, that additional highlight range is non-linearly mapped into the image, creating a very film-like “shoulder.” For raw, it simply passes metadata to your raw decoder that may or may not be honored.

Lightroom, for example, interprets HTP as a simple instruction to boost exposure by one stop. Fair enough, except that this won’t match what you saw on the camera LCD at all. Blacks will be too crushed and that extra highlight detail will be missing (until you futz with the Develop controls to bring it back). Trying to bring more detail back into the blacks will bring in nasty noise that was not visible in the JPEG preview.

Underexposing to capture extra highlight info can be a fine idea, but it’s best implemented case-by-case, and in a predictable way.

Highlight Tone Priority hides the underexposure from you and might cause you to think you’re capturing a more robust negative than you really are.

But for video mode, it creates a more film-like low-contrast, high dynamic range image, with just a touch more noise from the one-stop push.

I now roll with two custom function settings, one with HTP on, one with it off. For daylight exteriors with plenty of light, HTP: On. For lower-light situations, or more controlled lighting, HTP: Off.

Update on Monday, August 24, 2009 at 2:09PM by Stu

There’s an interesting discussion of the nuances of HTP and ISO performance over at cinema5D.com. Interpret tests results such as these with caution though — as the OP says, he’s trying to show off the noise, so it’s not so much a real-world test as it is an attempt to learn more about what’s happening in the camera. Turns out there are some surprizing variations in noise preformance at different ISO settings, possibly having to do with some ISO settings being “virtual,” i.e. metadata offsets of native settings.