View Full Version : 5d Mark II vs 1/2" & 2/3" sensor cameras.


wparrish24
09-30-2010, 01:08 PM
How would the image resolution of a 5d Mark II with PL mount prime lenses (ie. zeiss compact primes) compare to the resolution of an EX3 or HPX500 with pl mount lenses if the images were blown up to be screened in movie theaters.

sonnyboo
09-30-2010, 02:05 PM
There is no exact answer to this. Depending on so many factors, footage from any of these good be great or terrible.

The compression of the H.264 of the 5D/7D/T2i is so high that it's detrimental, but the lenses and size of the sensors is much better than the EX and others.

None of that has anything to do with exposure, framing, lighting, set design, performance... etc.

wheatgrinder
09-30-2010, 02:28 PM
this might help..

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/category/lenses/

wparrish24
09-30-2010, 05:33 PM
thanks link was very helpful.

wparrish24
09-30-2010, 05:35 PM
The compression of the H.264 of the 5D/7D/T2i is so high that it's detrimental, but the lenses and size of the sensors is much better than the EX and others.



Why would the high compression be detrimental?

Aegis
09-30-2010, 05:52 PM
Because detail is being thrown away before you've even got the footage into your editing software. Consumer solutions typically use aggressive compression to reduce file sizes - if you want to display your material on a big screen, the less compression in the source footage the better - heavily compressed footage frequently exhibits artifacts (such as blocking).

Gonzo_Entertainment
09-30-2010, 05:55 PM
DSLRs have to compress because they are small and have limited processor power. Uncompressed footage would melt them. Even the larger Red has heat issues because the files it's puttting out are huge.

chilipie
09-30-2010, 05:56 PM
Why would the high compression be detrimental?

Compression = reducing the amount of information = less data to recreate the image from = lower quality image.

David.rhsc
10-01-2010, 01:01 PM
DSLRs have to compress because they are small and have limited processor power. Uncompressed footage would melt them. Even the larger Red has heat issues because the files it's puttting out are huge.

Ayup. And even with all the fan noise and heat, the RED is still working with compressed RAW. It's very very good compression, but it is compressed do a degree.

In regards to the original question, I've not seen any PL mount rings for 2/3" format broadcast cameras. Is there something different about the HDX500, or did you have a "red-rock" style adapter (the spinning/vibrating/whatever ground glass kind?)

As far as the EX (1 and 3), I've seen PL lenses used on those with something like a P+S Technik adapter, but in 2/3" never seen this done. I will say the EX-3 rig I saw with Zeiss lenses made some very sweet images, but unless you have a good hook up for the lenses, it'll get expensive quick.

sonnyboo
10-01-2010, 01:34 PM
Why would the high compression be detrimental?


As has been said, the high compression means lower picture quality. You have this amazing image, but it will not be as robust for things like color correction, titles, FX, etc. If your goal is YouTube, then a DSLR is the way to go.