Has anyone seen/projected Canon 7D 1080p 24fps footage onto a professional theater screen/converted to 35mm? How is the quality/resolution?

What are some good shooting settings to ensure best screen quality? (Sharpness etc.)

Might be worth taking a look at this thread (http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=23804).

Dig through that thread for settings for sure, but yes, I've run 7D footage through the same projector a theater here projects all their films in, and it looks fine.

Did you see Black Swan in cinema?
There is 7D footage in it.

As long as it was shot well, 7d footage looks great on the big screen.

What about other cameras like 5D and 550D? How do they look when projected on big screen?

Might be worth taking a look at this thread (http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=23804).

spent 10 minutes reading an old thread from 2010... pretty cool.


Did Cracker Funk end up making that movie on the T2i with only the stock lens?

spent 10 minutes reading an old thread from 2010... pretty cool.

Then you must thank me for bringing it back :lol:

Did Cracker Funk end up making that movie on the T2i with only the stock lens?

Anti-Hero? Sure did.

Fwiw, I saw that on the big screen at SoCal Independent Filmfest - the resolution held quite well.

Anti-Hero? Sure did.

Fwiw, I saw that on the big screen at SoCal Independent Filmfest - the resolution held quite well.

Thats good news Steve. I'm sure it takes a lot of effort during the shoot and the edit to make it look good on Big screen. Well done Anti-Hero!

The thing is - it's all relative. A 7D is going to look a lot better on a big screen than say, an iPhone. A 7D can look fine, but it's going to take a lot more work to look great on a big screen than say a RED camera.

With that said, if you're only viewing DSLR footage on a big screen, you'll likely forget about it or the lesser quality in comparison to a better camera will go largely unnoticed. A few DP friends of mine and myself recently screened a few of our films in a cinema; they all had different acquisition formats and we wanted to see how they all held up. On it's own, the 5D footage would've been okay, but straight up after Alexa footage and before S16 footage, it was jarring to see how low the quality was.

Thats good news Steve. I'm sure it takes a lot of effort during the shoot and the edit to make it look good on Big screen. Well done Anti-Hero!

Hehe.

First of all, thank you Zensteve, for referencing my project of passion. And thanks for watching it! :)

bluechip, the funny thing is that I actually made very little effort to make it look good. I shot the movie in 21 days, on a nothing budget, with a 2-person crew, and neither of the 2 people on the crew were legitimate cinematographers. And in post-production, I was on my own, and I'm no colorist.

I shot on the T2i. This camera (or any others in the Canon family) will blow-up to the big screen just fine. Look, I've been to plenty of film fests that screen movies on boring-ol' standard-definition DVD. And you know what? It's okay. Nobody gives a shit, because we're not there to see super-sharp images, we really only care about the story being told.

Zensteve saw my movie at the SoCal Film Fest, which was one of the few fests that actually asked me to send them a high-resolution digital copy of the film. So, Steve saw it in the best quality available for this film. However, the best quality available for this film still didn't have anything remotely resembling anything close to serious cinematography.

The long-winded point I make is that Steve's comments are only a reflection on the resolution and clarity of the picture being projected. To this end, a DSLR holds up quite nicely.

With that said, if you're only viewing DSLR footage on a big screen, you'll likely forget about it or the lesser quality in comparison to a better camera will go largely unnoticed. (...) the 5D footage would've been okay, but straight up after Alexa footage and before S16 footage, it was jarring to see how low the quality was.

Back when DVD was still new, Roger Ebert wrote an article about his first experiences watching a DVD versus the VHS tape. Said he couldn't tell them apart, quality-wise, when watching either one or the other at separate times. Totally different experience when viewing them side-by-side, or cutting from one to the other, though.

I think most people adapt to what they are seeing, at some point.

Tiny Furniture (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1570989/), winner of the 2010 South By Southwest Narrative Film Award, was filmed on a 7D. Granted there was a 50k budget, but doesn't change the fact it's a 7D. Incidentally, the writer/director/star of Tiny Funiture, Lena Dunham (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2501633/), won a Golden Globe, last night. She stars, and is an Executive Producer on the HBO series Girls.

Has anyone seen/projected Canon 7D 1080p 24fps footage onto a professional theater screen/converted to 35mm? How is the quality/resolution?

Less and less theaters are screening in 35mm film anymore. Digital projection is dominating, even in the smaller single screen theaters. The cost to transfer to 35mm is still about $400 per minute of footage. And from DSLR the conversion will degrade the image depending on how they do the transfer (laser is better than the other options, but it costs more).

Are you referring to the DLP digital projection? Because those look great with DSLR footage.


What are some good shooting settings to ensure best screen quality? (Sharpness etc.)

Make sure the focus is spot on and not kinda okay. And as much as this might seem obvious, just make sure everything is well composed and the colors are balanced. Also, it may void the warranty, but the MAGIC LANTERN hacks allow you to increase the bitrates so that you can get a higher quality video. So weigh the quality versus the loss of warranty.

Make sure the focus is spot on and not kinda okay. And as much as this might seem obvious, just make sure everything is well composed and the colors are balanced. Also, it may void the warranty, but the MAGIC LANTERN hacks allow you to increase the bitrates so that you can get a higher quality video. So weigh the quality versus the loss of warranty.

:yes:

Hehe.

First of all, thank you Zensteve, for referencing my project of passion. And thanks for watching it! :)

bluechip, the funny thing is that I actually made very little effort to make it look good. I shot the movie in 21 days, on a nothing budget, with a 2-person crew, and neither of the 2 people on the crew were legitimate cinematographers. And in post-production, I was on my own, and I'm no colorist.

I shot on the T2i. This camera (or any others in the Canon family) will blow-up to the big screen just fine. Look, I've been to plenty of film fests that screen movies on boring-ol' standard-definition DVD. And you know what? It's okay. Nobody gives a shit, because we're not there to see super-sharp images, we really only care about the story being told.

Zensteve saw my movie at the SoCal Film Fest, which was one of the few fests that actually asked me to send them a high-resolution digital copy of the film. So, Steve saw it in the best quality available for this film. However, the best quality available for this film still didn't have anything remotely resembling anything close to serious cinematography.

The long-winded point I make is that Steve's comments are only a reflection on the resolution and clarity of the picture being projected. To this end, a DSLR holds up quite nicely.



what lens did you use, cracker?

Stock lens, 18-55mm. I've recently purchased a 75-300mm, but just for practice. For the next big project, I'm hoping to hire a DP who has nice glass, but am willing to rent.

On a side-note, I have previously been a little paranoid about Magic Lantern. But now, enough time has passed, and I've only heard good things. Plus, I'm pretty sure my warranty is already expired. Time to take the plunge!

Hehe.

First of all, thank you Zensteve, for referencing my project of passion. And thanks for watching it! :)

bluechip, the funny thing is that I actually made very little effort to make it look good. I shot the movie in 21 days, on a nothing budget, with a 2-person crew, and neither of the 2 people on the crew were legitimate cinematographers. And in post-production, I was on my own, and I'm no colorist.

I shot on the T2i. This camera (or any others in the Canon family) will blow-up to the big screen just fine. Look, I've been to plenty of film fests that screen movies on boring-ol' standard-definition DVD. And you know what? It's okay. Nobody gives a shit, because we're not there to see super-sharp images, we really only care about the story being told.

Zensteve saw my movie at the SoCal Film Fest, which was one of the few fests that actually asked me to send them a high-resolution digital copy of the film. So, Steve saw it in the best quality available for this film. However, the best quality available for this film still didn't have anything remotely resembling anything close to serious cinematography.

The long-winded point I make is that Steve's comments are only a reflection on the resolution and clarity of the picture being projected. To this end, a DSLR holds up quite nicely.

What I want to know is where is this opus available for viewing? Do you have a Vimeo or youtube channel, Cracker? I must see this movie.

I need food, I need to breath, and I need to see this movie! :yes:

What I want to know is where is this opus available for viewing? Do you have a Vimeo or youtube channel, Cracker? I must see this movie.

I need food, I need to breath, and I need to see this movie! :yes:

Thank you, Vegas, I am flattered!

It's not officially available to the public, but soon will be. My top priority is to get it on netflix, but there is one last thing I'm waiting on, before I contact them. If I'm unable to get it on netflix, then I'll soon get it streaming via another avenue. The leading candidate would be a website run by an indietalker who has been rather kind to me. Actually, even if I do get it on netflix, that shouldn't stop me from streaming it from any other source.

If that works for you, cool. But if you really need to see it, right now, I'd be more than happy to find a way to get it into your hands. PM me, if you're interested. :D

PM me when its available to the public so i can buy a copy

PM me when its available to the public so i can buy a copy

And me as well!

Anti-Hero? Sure did.

Fwiw, I saw that on the big screen at SoCal Independent Filmfest - the resolution held quite well.

Ditto. Was at this very screening with Zen. Only a handful of shots seemed compromised to my eyes, but the majority of the film totally held up on the screen. I just loved that day trip montage that included the shot inside the movie theater. :D

Ditto. Was at this very screening with Zen. Only a handful of shots seemed compromised to my eyes, but the majority of the film totally held up on the screen. I just loved that day trip montage that included the shot inside the movie theater. :D

I think I have a pretty good guess as to which scenes stood out. There was one, in particular, that I came really close to cutting, because half of the footage was out of focus. In the end, I said F-it, because the scene is just plain funny.

In addition to that, there were a couple of scenes that were rather heavily cropped. I have a feeling those stood out to you.

I think Zensteve nailed it on the head, in mentioning the Roger Ebert distinction between DVD and VHS. I think an audience rapidly adjusts to whatever resolution they're watching in. I've seen plenty of film fests that were projected in boring-ol' standard definition, and everyone is fine with it.

I think the reason Flicker noticed the resolution in a couple scenes from Antihero was only because he had adjusted to watching my movie in 1080p, and then all of a sudden, here comes a scene (or a single shot) that has been cropped to 720p. If the entire movie had been in 720p, he'd have been fine with it, but the jumping back-and-forth between resolutions can be jarring.

And yes, I'll definitely keep you all abreast of when it's fully available for public viewing. It feels like this whole thing has played out in geological time. But we're finally nearing the end. I should have it streaming within a few months. :)

if you're only viewing DSLR footage on a big screen, you'll likely forget about it or the lesser quality in comparison to a better camera will go largely unnoticed. [...] On it's own, the 5D footage would've been okay, but straight up after Alexa footage and before S16 footage, it was jarring to see how low the quality was.

I think this is an important point that most people seem to skip over. If you're just screening your film for an audience where they have no immediate point of comparison it'll look just fine. I screened a bunch of our short films in what is probably one of the best theaters in the country - some were shot on HDV, most on a 5D, and I didn't have time to prep ProRes masters for all of them so they were mostly 15-20mbps h.264. Honestly they all looked great and the audience loved them. There was even a mix of 720p and 1080p, but never within the same short. Now I'm sure if we'd thrown something shot on RED and professionally graded into the mix the audience would have noticed the quality difference, but since they were fairly consistent it was fine. I think once you've got a solid, basically good image that is consistent throughout the film things like the story and acting are much more important to the audience.

Cracker, I sent you a PM. Let me know. Thanks!