GH2 Did Francis Ford Coppola really prefer the Gh2 at the Zacuto shootout

B

berylium

Well-known member
Just watched Zacuto Shootout. Also read another blogger who said that Francis Ford Coppola preferred the Gh2.

Wasn't sure if he said that.

Anybody else watched the Zacuto shootout?
 
I'm also a big GH2 fan but I'm no Francis Ford Coppola. Just drink his wine and watch his movies.

-Noah
 
His choices were B, C, F in that order -

My choices were B, A, F as best to my eyes (before I knew) with D,G,E being worst.

The only thing I felt really sure of was D being the absolute worst so I figured that was the iphone and I thought that G was prob the 7D cause of the window squiggles aliasing .


B = hacked GH2
C = Red Epic
F = Alexa
A = Sony F3

G = Canon 7D
D = Iphone


All hell is breaking loose over this but it's nice to see so many people picked the GH2 first including a world class director, but again.... remember,
having the best ice skates in the world does not make you a world class ice skater....

In other words, one of the most important things that was learned here was summed up in a comment by one of the DPs and I am paraphrasing but it was -

"The thing that was most impressive with is that some guys or gals with something to prove did better at lighting with a their cameras than the established cinematographers with the expensive cameras” or something to that effect
 
Last edited:
It's funny, handled right, the GH2 could have easily had a look more like H or F. The lighting and harsh color grading really brought out the "digitalness" in the image. It really bugged me actually since I'm a GH2 nut, and I felt like it was misrepresented here. Even with strong sharp panny lenses, the GH2 has a wonderful slightly desaturated image that didn't come across at all here. Ah well.
 
I would be curious to know their shutter speed, because with people complaining about the GH2's choppiness...I wonder if they used 1/40th instead of 1/50th? Somehow I doubt it. Kholi here on the forum is the right guy to ask about the GH2 and he's certain the GH2's motion is more 1/48th looking at 1/40th over 1/50th...I've seen the difference and it does fix the issue IMO.
 
KyleProhaska said:
I would be curious to know their shutter speed, because with people complaining about the GH2's choppiness...I wonder if they used 1/40th instead of 1/50th? Somehow I doubt it. Kholi here on the forum is the right guy to ask about the GH2 and he's certain the GH2's motion is more 1/48th looking at 1/40th over 1/50th...I've seen the difference and it does fix the issue IMO.
Click to expand...

Choppyness by going down to 1/40 over say 1/50 is the opposite of what would happen. 1/40 by far gives the smoothest motion, especially in a scene like this where there's nothing so fast as to create motion blur. 1/40 would look just like C / F / H, but I think here it might have been set to 1/60.
 
We must remember they watched this projected. I'm not exactly sure what projector they used I don't know if they mentioned that. I have seen the GH13 and GH2 hacked going from my master file out to multiple projectors in times square and it looks awesome. My home projector is a Epson 8350 and the image is mind boggling. Many times that digital look is your lcd or screen coupled with bad internet compression or streaming or that 24p (23.98) does not divide evenly into 60hz lcd screens or your graphics card's handling of video... etc. I see my colors and light change when I go to youtube or vimeo and also where I was a HUGE sony vegas fan I am starting to use Edius more and more.
 
Last edited:
I thought that the iPhone video looked almost... 3d. Actually, I don't know how many of your gamed back in the mid 90s, but a lot of games used video sprites, and that zacuto iPhone video looks exactly like those video sprites from the games.

Takes me back to Under a Killing Moon or 7th Guest!
 
I was a little disappointed since I knew B was the gh2, because of the over-lit soap-opera, over sharpen digital look. I think that it was the crew that tried perhaps a bit too much to compensate the perception that this camera would has less DR and sharpness than the other pro camera. I am sure they did not see the other ones work and perception went a bit overboard.
 
I am so embarrassed.

That was Francis Ford Coppola right at the beginning of the shootout part 2.... how I missed him I'll never know.

I'll crawl back to under the rock.
 
The test where they can't touch the lighting will tell the real tale. This one basically meant nothing since the crews were able to change the lighting set up. "B" crew added a scarp ton of fill light.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
The test where they can't touch the lighting will tell the real tale. This one basically meant nothing since the crews were able to change the lighting set up. "B" crew added a scarp ton of fill light.
Click to expand...

I think that's unfair. Each kind of test has its advantages. Keep the lighting the same does of course make a purely technical comparison of the cameras easier. But - it's a very artificial test since in reality you would (or should) always shoot to the strengths of the camera you're using. Any such test will have an in built bias since the scene and lighting you choose will favour certain cameras over others.

This is a different kind of test. Arguably more realistic but also more subjective. No test is perfect but this one very effectively demonstrated a useful fact - that all (well perhaps not iphone or 7d) of these cameras can produce fantastic images in the right hands.
 
L1N3ARX said:
Choppyness by going down to 1/40 over say 1/50 is the opposite of what would happen. 1/40 by far gives the smoothest motion, especially in a scene like this where there's nothing so fast as to create motion blur. 1/40 would look just like C / F / H, but I think here it might have been set to 1/60.
Click to expand...

I know that...I guess I mistyped what I meant. I meant I wonder if they used 1/50 instead of 1/40 not the other way around. If they used 1/60 especially then that's their fault. Ah well...
 
What it represents largely is the choice of the crew to either work with the difficulties of the lighting setup or radically alter it to optimize if for the camera. It's really not a "comparison" in any real sense.
 
As much as anything it proves everything and nothing. Craft is king among all else. Because the lighting setups were changed, there is some preference based on that. The highest cameras may subjectively look worse because the lighting was left alone to prove it could handle it. Technically better but not aesthetically so.

I think most any cinematographer knows that the most important visual information in a scene needs to be within a 4 stop range. Choices will be made of what will be allowed to go black and what white. The eye is drawn to skin tones, and we've grown accustomed to blown windows and dark shadows. I found the shots that leveled the window out the most looked the most fake to me.

Any of these cameras can work depending on the needs and resources of the film. But you need to know how to use it and what to expect. I've said before that if you shoot with a Gh2 every day, that would probably be a better choice for a low budget weekend shoot, then a RED or Alexa that you've never used, and don't have a chance to test.

Finally if this proves anything, it is that final grading is the icing on the cake. If you don't have access to a DI suite, you have to work that much harder to achieve the 'Magic'. It is a different world now, much more than just lighting and white-balance. Download Davinci Free, or whatever tool you care to use and learn masking and power-windows, that is what levels the playing field and make anything shine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top