PDA

View Full Version : The Great Camera Shootout 2010



Ruzo
03-24-2010, 09:32 PM
For some of you who did not know about it:

http://www.zacuto.com/

dcloud
03-24-2010, 10:09 PM
anybody can provide a directdownload. streaming and waiting sucks for me :)

jleo
03-24-2010, 11:09 PM
Direct Download Flash format:

http://wpc.102A.edgecastcdn.net/00102A/vids/shootout/epi1/ZacutoShootout2010-Episode1-Flash.flv

ChipG
03-25-2010, 01:02 AM
What a great video!

dcloud
03-25-2010, 03:01 AM
thanks jleo!

jonE5
03-25-2010, 07:09 AM
Ok i caught this last night and I must say i was really blown away. I have known for some time and really was an early adopter of this growing trend to use DSLR's for video. I did this because it was a fairly inexpensive (in comparison) way to get into video, without purchasing a second set of equipment from my still camera. I have known since hte beginning of using the D90 that these DSLR's while some great abilities and features have some really serious short commings. Even after upgrading the the 7D which addressed many of these glaring problems there are still some left.

They took great pains to make sure this test was fair and unbiased, even going as far as to use the same Ziess glass on every camera (including the film camerashttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://forums.clubsi.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Main/217157/Number/4617402#)).

Well after seeing these cameras compared to Kodak and Fuji film stocks, its amazing to see just how close these 2nd gen DSLR's are.

In some low light instances i felt the 5DMKII and 7D actually looked BETTER than the Fuji film stock (the Kodak was still clearly the best of anything on any test).

What does this all mean? Film can cost as much as $800 / min to develop. Record 2 minutes of footage and your spent enough to BUY a 7D, record another minute and your up to 5DMKII range, and thats not even counting the cost to get the film camera (buy or rent).

Seeing actual industry leaders confirm a lot of this was exciting to see.

You can also see the difference in the newer gen vid DSLR's (the canons) vs 1st gen technology (http://forums.clubsi.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Main/217157/Number/4617402#) (The Nikon D3S), and 1.5 gen technology (Panasonic GH1), and how those two cameras still have a few more short commings that the newest stuff.

You still have the issue of rolling shutter (which is greatly improved from the beginings), and a slightly lower dynamic range, but knowing the limitations its pretty easy to work within them. Also for a photo guy like myself, working with a DSLR is just not a difficult task at all, and i actually rather like it in most cases (aside from the viewing screen).

dcloud
03-25-2010, 09:29 AM
Ok i caught this last night and I must say i was really blown away. I have known for some time and really was an early adopter of this growing trend to use DSLR's for video. I did this because it was a fairly inexpensive (in comparison) way to get into video, without purchasing a second set of equipment from my still camera. I have known since hte beginning of using the D90 that these DSLR's while some great abilities and features have some really serious short commings. Even after upgrading the the 7D which addressed many of these glaring problems there are still some left.

They took great pains to make sure this test was fair and unbiased, even going as far as to use the same Ziess glass on every camera (including the film camerashttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://forums.clubsi.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Main/217157/Number/4617402#)).

Well after seeing these cameras compared to Kodak and Fuji film stocks, its amazing to see just how close these 2nd gen DSLR's are.

In some low light instances i felt the 5DMKII and 7D actually looked BETTER than the Fuji film stock (the Kodak was still clearly the best of anything on any test).

What does this all mean? Film can cost as much as $800 / min to develop. Record 2 minutes of footage and your spent enough to BUY a 7D, record another minute and your up to 5DMKII range, and thats not even counting the cost to get the film camera (buy or rent).

Seeing actual industry leaders confirm a lot of this was exciting to see.

You can also see the difference in the newer gen vid DSLR's (the canons) vs 1st gen technology (http://forums.clubsi.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Main/217157/Number/4617402#) (The Nikon D3S), and 1.5 gen technology (Panasonic GH1), and how those two cameras still have a few more short commings that the newest stuff.

You still have the issue of rolling shutter (which is greatly improved from the beginings), and a slightly lower dynamic range, but knowing the limitations its pretty easy to work within them. Also for a photo guy like myself, working with a DSLR is just not a difficult task at all, and i actually rather like it in most cases (aside from the viewing screen).
well this is to your stand point since youre indie. but for me film is still king.
REMEMBER
this is just part one. its only dynamic range. it still doesnt cover resolution and aliasing which will absolutely obliterate dslr

NextWaveG
03-25-2010, 11:37 AM
well this is to your stand point since youre indie. but for me film is still king.
REMEMBER
this is just part one. its only dynamic range. it still doesnt cover resolution and aliasing which will absolutely obliterate dslr

I don't think anyone is saying film isn't king in these videos. I just think they are trying to decide if DSLRs are princes or jesters :D

Chamber005
03-25-2010, 12:23 PM
It's crazy that the 5D is still the best. Its sensor is just too friggin bad-ass.

Funny enough I actually thought the high contrast style of the GH1 was pretty cool.

I like the look of film best, but it's almost a non-argument in the micro-budget world that DSLRs or HD cams with 35mm adapters destroy film -- because then the films can actually be MADE on a person's individual budget. Kevin Smith, Woody Allen, Robert Rodriguez, Spike Lee -- all of them, I think, would have shot on these DSLRs for their first films if they could have.

I'm using film (S16mm and 16mm) alongside DSLR and HD+35mm adapter capture because there's a need for different sort of looks throughout the film; but if I was shooting a movie and I wasn't using the actual format as an aspect of the storytelling (or if I just plain didn't have the money), I most certainly would never, ever, ever spend the extra cash on film. It makes much more sense to shoot RED, DSLR, EX, HVX, etc. No one is going to not enjoy your movie because you shot it on a Mark 5D II or an EX1 with 35mm adapter. Hopefully this shoot out finally puts all that to bed.

There used to be all these people sitting around saying, "I would make a film if only I could get the money together to make it." And now those same people are saying that they have to shoot on film or on a Red with a large crew and so still need all this imaginary money in order to create their "vision". Turns out they're just plain lazy.

I love that we now live in an age where you don't have to have money in order to showcase your talents in a desirable (and sometimes indistinguishable) format for an audience. Heck, even special effects and 3D animation can be done for dirt cheap nowadays.

I think these next ten years could be one of the most important decades in film history; the decade when the everyday joe or jane was able to make a movie for almost nothing. The best young artists coming together without studio approval or interference. Pretty awesome time to be a filmmaker.

The same thing is going on in the literary world because of the Kindle, and once a similar device is delivered for comic books I think we'll see new and amazing works coming from artists and writers all over the world.

I love me some digital, even if it is different from film.

ethan cooper
03-25-2010, 01:17 PM
Why have Bloom there as the resident DSLR expert and NOT have him tweek out the GH1 fully? I wonder if they messed with the D3s much or if they (rightly so) left it alone since all the menu fiddling in the world would help much. Glad they tosed it in there just for refrence.

I thought it slightly disingenuous of Zacuto to go out of their way to point out they don't have a horse in the race when clearly the intent of this was to show DSLR's in their best light so more people would gravitate to them and therefore buy more Zacuto accessories.

PDR
03-25-2010, 01:29 PM
Thanks for posting that for download jleo; it was quite illuminating :)

NextWaveG
03-25-2010, 01:29 PM
I thought it slightly disingenuous of Zacuto to go out of their way to point out they don't have a horse in the race when clearly the intent of this was to show DSLR's in their best light so more people would gravitate to them and therefore buy more Zacuto accessories.

I don't think you understand the purpose of the test. No one argues film is best. The question is how much worse is DSLR. A lot or a little. Their impartiality is for the DSLR manufacturers. Everybody there is rooting for the DSLRs because they the "under dog". Everyone knows that film will win...but the tests are to see by how much.

dcloud
03-25-2010, 04:54 PM
I don't think anyone is saying film isn't king in these videos. I just think they are trying to decide if DSLRs are princes or jesters :D

Except for the dof and form factor, i dont see why camcorders arent better. Im not bashng dslrs im buying one soon :p i just find the praising a bt premature

NextWaveG
03-25-2010, 05:57 PM
Except for the dof and form factor, i dont see why camcorders arent better. Im not bashng dslrs im buying one soon :p i just find the praising a bt premature

Controllable DOF is only one factor in what DSLRs great. They have very good dynamic range, better than video camcorders. The ability to use SLR and Cine lenses is HUGE. Forget DOF, now I can get super sharp quality from Zeiss and other lenses. Yeah, I know you can slap a 35mm adapter on a camera and use these lenses, but with a DSLR you aren't shooting through an adapter which improves quality and light loss. And speaking of light loss, DSLRs have very good low light ability.

I could go on, but for me DOF is not the only reason DSLRs are great.

JFreshInEffect!
03-25-2010, 07:08 PM
Except for the dof and form factor, i dont see why camcorders arent better. Im not bashng dslrs im buying one soon :p i just find the praising a bt premature

That depends on the camcorder. The camcorder market is in a rut at this point in time. Also HDSLR's get just as much hateraid as they get props.

Barry_Green
03-25-2010, 07:13 PM
They have very good dynamic range, better than video camcorders.
No they don't. Tested side by side, the video cameras always do better.


The ability to use SLR and Cine lenses is HUGE. Forget DOF, now I can get super sharp quality from Zeiss and other lenses.
Except that the camera can't handle that sharpness, and an excessively sharp lens (sharper than the camera can resolve) actually results in the footage looking worse. It's when the lens is sharper than the camera can handle, that the aliasing comes into play.

The major advantage to the DSLR, the undeniable massive advantage, is shallow DOF at a cheap price (even an astonishingly cheap price).

James0b57
03-25-2010, 07:25 PM
Is the dynamic range a comparison of a DSLR with a sub $2k video camera?

It must be the thin DOF that's throwing us off, as it adds a creaminess to the image. I do admit, and am not noticing much improvement in dynamic range, but their is some trickery that makes me think there is an improvement.

I wager that the in the sub $1000 market, that DSLR's have better dynamic range.

NextWaveG
03-25-2010, 09:15 PM
@ Barry

Let me rephrase my statement. I've worked with lots of HD video cameras, but I've only owned a few. The camera I owned before my 5D was the XH-A1. Great camera for weddings and event videography, but not the best for filmmaking. Slap a DOF adapter on it and it's decent but not good enough for my taste.

Then steps in the DSLR...

I sold my Redrock M2, XH-A1 and other random stuff and bought a 5D MkII with the kit 24-105 f/4. The first time I shot with it I was blown away. Not cause of the DOF but because of how sharp and vivid the picture was. Made my XH-A1 look like a consumer handy-cam. And at f/4 I hadn't even started playing around with faster and sharper lenses and super sexy DOF.

All I can do is speak from experience and when I compared my 5D to a similar costing video camcorder like the XH-A1, it blew it out of the water...even with the 5D's limitations.

ugafan
03-25-2010, 11:00 PM
thank you for posting the link to the zacuto video. when does episode 2 come out?

ethan cooper
03-26-2010, 07:34 AM
I don't think you understand the purpose of the test. No one argues film is best. The question is how much worse is DSLR. A lot or a little. Their impartiality is for the DSLR manufacturers. Everybody there is rooting for the DSLRs because they the "under dog". Everyone knows that film will win...but the tests are to see by how much.

Wait, what? I think you are the one who misunderstood my comment. I said nothing about film being better, that's just a given, even they called it the 'gold standard' for the test, I said nothing at all about film vs dslr in my post.

What I said was that despite their assertion otherwise, Zacuto does have a vested interest in showing off the ability of DSLR's and that's to garner more interest in them which will have the side effect of increasing the number of users who will need or want to buy Zacuto accessories.

I'm not implyin the tests were fudged or rigged or anything else, it's simply an effort to keep DSLR's on the minds of consumers/producers that will ultimately help widen their userbase. It's a smart marketing move by Zacuto. I'm just pointing out the slight hipocrisy of them going to some lengths at the beginning of the piece to make it sound like Zacuto gains nothing from the tests.

NextWaveG
03-26-2010, 08:28 AM
I'm just pointing out the slight hipocrisy of them going to some lengths at the beginning of the piece to make it sound like Zacuto gains nothing from the tests.

And that's what I was disagreeing with. I don't think they were saying they didn't gain anything from these shoots. In fact I think it's implied that they are rooting for the DSLR. But what they said is that they would remain impartial to the MANUFACTURERS...i.e. Canon vs. Nikon vs. Panasonic.

They still want DSLRs to look as good as possible, but they are trying to let each camera show it's own worth.

dcloud
03-26-2010, 08:52 AM
I would shoot on an hpx500 with letus ultimate over a dslr.

The only thing a dslr is going for is price. Its so effin cheap.

I would disagree on camcorders not havng dynamic range or quality. Its plain misinformed. Hpx300 is a 10bit 422 intra cam. Dslrs are long gop4:2:0 8 bit.

for one thing, xha1 is hdv 3ccd. Compare a sony ex1 with a dslr, the only thong the dslr has is price, dof, lowlight and portability. Are dslrs great? Yes. But theyre not better than camcorders. Atleast not yet.

Dslrs are 720p at bes. In resolution.

movieman711
03-26-2010, 09:03 AM
I would shoot on an hpx500 with letus ultimate over a dslr.

The only thing a dslr is going for is price. Its so effin cheap.

I would disagree on camcorders not havng dynamic range or quality. Its plain misinformed. Hpx300 is a 10bit 422 intra cam. Dslrs are long gop4:2:0 8 bit.

for one thing, xha1 is hdv 3ccd. Compare a sony ex1 with a dslr, the only thong the dslr has is price, dof, lowlight and portability. Are dslrs great? Yes. But theyre not better than camcorders. Atleast not yet.

Dslrs are 720p at bes. In resolution.

Seems like price, dof, lowlight, and portability are pretty big benefits. I don't think anyone is saying a high quality camcorder doesn't give a technically better picture but does it give a more filmic image than the DSLR and I think not. Unless you use an adapter and man thats just not the direction i want to go anymore. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/icons/icon7.gif

Roy

Ian-T
03-26-2010, 09:11 AM
+1 Movieman

I'll take it a step further....why not just shoot on the standard..that is...Film? For most folks it's the costs that holds them back.

No one is saying that DSLRs are not limited...but...they just arguably look better.

djkarn105
03-26-2010, 09:17 AM
I would disagree on camcorders not havng dynamic range or quality. Its plain misinformed. Hpx300 is a 10bit 422 intra cam. Dslrs are long gop4:2:0 8 bit.


I believe you are conflating Color sampling and dynamic range. Dynamic range is lightest to darkest (luma) the camera can expose, which is the same in 4:2:2 and 4:2:0. True, with 4:2:2 you are going to be able to pull more information out of blown out or underexposed areas, but that is because color channels don't blow evenly so having more information in the red channel helps when the green and blue blow out.

Chamber005
03-26-2010, 10:01 AM
Why have Bloom there as the resident DSLR expert and NOT have him tweek out the GH1 fully? I wonder if they messed with the D3s much or if they (rightly so) left it alone since all the menu fiddling in the world would help much. Glad they tosed it in there just for refrence.

I thought it slightly disingenuous of Zacuto to go out of their way to point out they don't have a horse in the race when clearly the intent of this was to show DSLR's in their best light so more people would gravitate to them and therefore buy more Zacuto accessories.

lol

Why in the world or universe would any business ever do ANYTHING for ANYONE if it didn't directly affect their BUSINESS?

With the exception of doing charity work (which is a completely different animal and should be enacted by all businesses everywhere), of course Zacuto is trying (and should be) to show products in their best light when they have assets that compliment these products.

I'm always confused when people try to layer businesses with some dark underbelly when IT'S A BUSINESS. Every single thing Zacuto or Canon or Panasonic or DVXuser or anything that is an INC or LLC or DBA does, EVER, will be to improve their BUSINESS. That's what they're SUPPOSED to do. That is the ONLY REASON Zacuto exists. That's it. Not for your enjoyment or benefit or to educate you. Zacuto, like every other business on the planet, exists to be the best BUSINESS it can be.

It is RARE that a business would do so much and spend so much time and money on something FOR US, the USER, with so little expected ROI.

If you aren't a business owner you're working for someone who is GIVING YOU money. When I see something like this it gives me a warm gushy feeling inside because I know how much effort and time and resources must have went into making this and how little actual money they're probably going to make by delivering it. This is about as close to charity as a company should ever be without literally taking part in a charity. I applaud Zacuto for their efforts. I THANK Zacuto as a business for what they're doing -- employing people. And I HOPE that by making this video they MAKE MORE MONEY so that they can employ more people and make more videos!

They didn't have a horse in the race meaning that they would be objective about which camera was best. But OF COURSE as a business they have a BUSINESS REASON for making this video. And that's a GOOD thing. Nothing matters more in this country than small business. We should be supporting them at every possible avenue, especially when it's something like this.

I just hate it when people act like business is a dirty word. Business is the reason we have every single thing that we have, period. It's the reason you have food, clothing, a place to live, healthcare, everything. Zacuto is a good small business doing good small business and trying to grow expontentially. GREAT for them -- and if it benefits us AT ALL, wow! Like, seriously, wow! You didn't use any of their products or give them any money at all and you still LEARNED SOMETHING from them????

WOW!

How about THANK YOU. Ya know? Period. THANK YOU ZACUTO FOR GIVING ME FREE INFORMATION. I HOPE THAT I CAN USE YOUR PRODUCTS IN THE FUTURE SO THAT YOU CAN KEEP YOUR OPERATION THRIVING.

But instead you'd like to point to some vague negative?

People are strange. Especially people who aren't particularly successful. Not saying that you're not successful, I just find that people who have negative things to say about other people's endevours usually aren't as successful as the people they're judging.

Noel Evans
03-26-2010, 10:24 AM
Thank you Chamber, dont think I could have said it better myself.

If only the 5D shot in a RAW codec. Now that would mess the market up. More range etc etc.

Beautiful shots from Philip.

Now bring on the test where the camera actually moves etc etc

ethan cooper
03-26-2010, 10:37 AM
Thank you Chamber, dont think I could have said it better myself.

If only the 5D shot in a RAW codec. Now that would mess the market up. More range etc etc.

Beautiful shots from Philip.

Now bring on the test where the camera actually moves etc etc


Speaking of RAW, there were a couple times that people mentioned the word RAW in the piece but I could never figure out in what context they were talking about since none of those cameras currently shoot video in RAW.

ethan cooper
03-26-2010, 10:46 AM
People are strange. Especially people who aren't particularly successful. Not saying that you're not successful, I just find that people who have negative things to say about other people's endevours usually aren't as successful as the people they're judging.

Been needing to get something off your chest?

I was never bashing Zacuto for doing the test, nor was I questioning anything about the test. In my post I even commended them for this being a great bit of marketing.** My comments were simply in response to the annoying habbit we've got in this society of not just coming out and saying why we're doing what we're doing, that's all. I think you read a bit too much into it.

**evidently it wasn't in the particular post you quoted

Chamber005
03-26-2010, 01:03 PM
Been needing to get something off your chest?

I was never bashing Zacuto for doing the test, nor was I questioning anything about the test. In my post I even commended them for this being a great bit of marketing.** My comments were simply in response to the annoying habbit we've got in this society of not just coming out and saying why we're doing what we're doing, that's all. I think you read a bit too much into it.

**evidently it wasn't in the particular post you quoted

That is the exact opposite of how business and business people thrive.

Businesses thrive on telling you and showing why you should use them or their products. Telling someone to buy something from you so that you can make money is just...the most bizarre thing I can even conjure.

If you go out on a date with an attractive lady, obviously that lady knows that you want to have sex with her. But is that really going to be the topic of conversation? How boring and deflating would life be if all we ever talked about and focused on was what someone else can do for us; what we want from THEM? Businesses certainly can't survive that way. "What can we do for YOU" is the business motto, and I believe that's what Zacuto was trying to emulate and reassure to the customer.

And Zacuto saying that they have no stake in the outcome of who wins the test is completely accurate and not a strategy or a lie or a misconception. They do not care what camera wins. They wanted the viewer to be clear that this was not a Canon or Nikon-sponsored test with Canon or Nikon judges (e.g. "we do not have a stake in this" means they do not have a stake in any of the given companies).

But why in the world is it at all relevant to point out that a business could potentialy profit from sponsoring a contest? DVXUSER has contests all the time -- because they're trying to extend their brand and create a larger user base. But DVXuser doesn't actually care who wins any of their contests, they simply want more people to come and take part in the contests and view the films in the contests. Should Zacuto honestly have said as a disclaimer, "While we have no stake in which camera wins, there is the potential that we could make a profit if you use any of our tech in conjunction with your DSLR camera"?

LOL

That is your version of full disclosure? That's pre-school. It's trying to find some possible negative in a sea of awesomeness for the sake of finding something negative. They're a business. As you said, this was a great marketing platform. Why not just leave it at that?

But yeah, I'm done. Just reminding that it takes so much more effort to find something negative than it does to just focus on all the positive, especially as it pertains to business.

Jawa Ex Machina
03-26-2010, 02:02 PM
Is the shootout available anywhere in lower resolution? I can't watch that on my tiny 1.6gHz 1024x576 craptop.

dcloud
03-26-2010, 05:40 PM
Seems like price, dof, lowlight, and portability are pretty big benefits. I don't think anyone is saying a high quality camcorder doesn't give a technically better picture but does it give a more filmic image than the DSLR and I think not. Unless you use an adapter and man thats just not the direction i want to go anymore. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/icons/icon7.gif

Roy

i was referring to nextwave's post. sorry :P

to ian_t
yes if given the opportunity, id rather shoot on film :D but the topic was about camorder vs dslr so id choose a camcorder.. not that dslrs are a bad thing but saying it has better range and resolution is insane. (refering to what nextwave said)

yoclay
03-26-2010, 06:46 PM
It's crazy that the 5D is still the best. Its sensor is just too friggin bad-ass.

Funny enough I actually thought the high contrast style of the GH1 was pretty cool.

I like the look of film best, but it's almost a non-argument in the micro-budget world that DSLRs or HD cams with 35mm adapters destroy film -- because then the films can actually be MADE on a person's individual budget. Kevin Smith, Woody Allen, Robert Rodriguez, Spike Lee -- all of them, I think, would have shot on these DSLRs for their first films if they could have.

I'm using film (S16mm and 16mm) alongside DSLR and HD+35mm adapter capture because there's a need for different sort of looks throughout the film; but if I was shooting a movie and I wasn't using the actual format as an aspect of the storytelling (or if I just plain didn't have the money), I most certainly would never, ever, ever spend the extra cash on film. It makes much more sense to shoot RED, DSLR, EX, HVX, etc. No one is going to not enjoy your movie because you shot it on a Mark 5D II or an EX1 with 35mm adapter. Hopefully this shoot out finally puts all that to bed.

There used to be all these people sitting around saying, "I would make a film if only I could get the money together to make it." And now those same people are saying that they have to shoot on film or on a Red with a large crew and so still need all this imaginary money in order to create their "vision". Turns out they're just plain lazy.

I love that we now live in an age where you don't have to have money in order to showcase your talents in a desirable (and sometimes indistinguishable) format for an audience. Heck, even special effects and 3D animation can be done for dirt cheap nowadays.

I think these next ten years could be one of the most important decades in film history; the decade when the everyday joe or jane was able to make a movie for almost nothing. The best young artists coming together without studio approval or interference. Pretty awesome time to be a filmmaker.

The same thing is going on in the literary world because of the Kindle, and once a similar device is delivered for comic books I think we'll see new and amazing works coming from artists and writers all over the world.

I love me some digital, even if it is different from film.

I disagree. The camera and the film has always been the cheapest part of making a real film. The cost of the production, the people and talent involved, the logistics, the machinery, etc. - all of that is not going away just because video is taking over where film once was. In fact the most expensive thing involved remains - our time. The problem is now that many backers expect the rest of the production to drop in price in the same way that the image side has. I always tell them the same thing:

"You, like everyone want three things: Good, fast and cheap."

"Pick two."

Chamber005
03-28-2010, 06:25 AM
I disagree. The camera and the film has always been the cheapest part of making a real film. The cost of the production, the people and talent involved, the logistics, the machinery, etc. - all of that is not going away just because video is taking over where film once was. In fact the most expensive thing involved remains - our time. The problem is now that many backers expect the rest of the production to drop in price in the same way that the image side has. I always tell them the same thing:

"You, like everyone want three things: Good, fast and cheap."

"Pick two."

lol

Good quote.

But to your comment I was referring specifically to the micro-budget indie. The most expensive thing for the micro budget indie has always been camera and film, primarily because everything else you mentioned is usually donated. Clerks would have probably cost 2400 bucks opposed to 24K had Kevin Smith had a Mark 5D.

daveswan
03-28-2010, 07:25 AM
Hmmm...... A 5DII body costs 1700 or a bit less, less what I can get for my 5DI, and use loads of lenses I already have.
An HPX301 costs 8500 with a basic lens.

Question 1, how does the DR of the 5DII (Which the shootout found to be 10 1/2 stops) compare with the HPX301?

Question 2, how does the DR of the 5DII compare with an original HVX200 (Which I have and know)?

Question 3, how does the DR of the 5DII compare with <1600 handycams?

Not being sarky, just wanting to know, especially Q2, since Barry, whose opinions I trust, said it was less than (Implied) any camcorder.

I mention particularly the 5DII which is the one I most want to buy, for photographic as well as cine use.

I don't doubt that the HPX has the better colour sampling and codec, just that for an amateur enthusiast like me (Amateur .... in this for love not money, Enthusiast ...... trying to tell the best story I can technically and scriptically), it's way out of reach, whereas the 5DII isn't.
Dave

Jawa Ex Machina
03-28-2010, 10:17 AM
I disagree. The camera and the film has always been the cheapest part of making a real film. The cost of the production, the people and talent involved, the logistics, the machinery, etc. - all of that is not going away just because video is taking over where film once was. In fact the most expensive thing involved remains - our time. The problem is now that many backers expect the rest of the production to drop in price in the same way that the image side has. I always tell them the same thing:

"You, like everyone want three things: Good, fast and cheap."

"Pick two."
Well video and especially DSLR is much cheaper and easier than film. You can't deny that. It also saves a lot of time because there's no lab involved, and if I want to match a pickup for a scene we shot two months ago, I can upload a framegrab from that scene to the CF card and have in the actual camera to make an immediate comparrison between the lighting and everything. Saves tons of time and money right there.

That's money we can now spend on talent instead, so lower camera budget means we can afford better actors than if we shot on film.

djkarn105
03-28-2010, 11:35 AM
I disagree. The camera and the film has always been the cheapest part of making a real film. The cost of the production, the people and talent involved, the logistics, the machinery, etc. - all of that is not going away just because video is taking over where film once was. In fact the most expensive thing involved remains - our time. The problem is now that many backers expect the rest of the production to drop in price in the same way that the image side has. I always tell them the same thing:

"You, like everyone want three things: Good, fast and cheap."

"Pick two."


The thing about owning your own means of production is that time because far less expensive. If I no longer have to schedule around gear availability I can work things around people's schedules and get things for free. On an indie, your biggest advantage is that you have essentially unlimited time.

If you have CS3 you have all the same tools major visual effects studios have, the only difference is scale and level of expertise. So you're right, but what makes these cameras so revolutionary is that further enable us to go for good and cheap instead of cheap and fast.

goodwin productions
04-12-2010, 02:29 PM
first production i did with 5d mark II.
tell me how you love it or hate it.
http://vimeo.com/5700809

armisiano
05-09-2010, 11:08 AM
Still waiting on part 3

Darren Levine
05-16-2010, 08:04 AM
I loved the tests, but actually didn't like the flame test, just too damn inconsistent. i would have preferred if they used something like a 5watt bulb or somthing that doesn't change constantly like a flame

Darren Levine
05-16-2010, 08:13 AM
On another note, i always have to bring it up over and over these days that there really isn't much point for deliberating how good these new cameras are. They are using it on network tv and hollywood movies for christmas sake, what more do people need?

During my filmmaking courses one of the main things i try to drive into people's heads is that we are well beyond the minimum image quality in the low budget arena. there is ZERO point to be waiting for the next big thing. You should be out shooting, not waiting or debating whether it looks like film or not. Spend more time redrafting your script and finding good actors and production crew.

so comon, stop reading my vapid words and go shoot

Angry Leprechaun
05-16-2010, 02:29 PM
I loved the tests, but actually didn't like the flame test, just too damn inconsistent. i would have preferred if they used something like a 5watt bulb or somthing that doesn't change constantly like a flame

I think they used the flame because it produces lower light than even a bulb with that little of power.

David Fincher did a similar test with Leonardo DiCaprio with thew new Red One with the MX sensor.

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40947

armisiano
05-16-2010, 05:33 PM
...one of the main things i try to drive into people's heads is that we are well beyond the minimum image quality in the low budget arena. there is ZERO point to be waiting for the next big thing. You should be out shooting, not waiting or debating whether it looks like film or not. Spend more time redrafting your script and finding good actors and production crew.

so comon, stop reading my vapid words and go shoot

Well said.

And completely freaking true.