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

b_k said:
The footage used by the EPIC was done without HDR. Last place behind the iPhone (better than the 7D)? Wow.....I thought reduser.net had some crazy opinions...this ones just as interesting.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Ryan Walters very clearly states at 13:30 in Episode 1 of the shootout that he decided to enable HDRx. This clearly shows up with the strange halo like highlights as the African American woman steps out the door and into the bright light of the mock exterior. Looks like a bad beauty grade from Star Trek circa 1967.
 
berylium said:
In the camera department, we suggest that if the story is good enough, then the Iphone should suffice.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered if people were really serious about the claims that "you can shoot on anything if the story is good" or if they're just using hyperbole. To me, the minimum required tool, if you are trying to achieve the perception of a 35mm format shot feature film, is a 7D/5D. Things like the HPX's, EX3's, and XF's just don't cut it. They may have better technical "quality", but they just do not look like movie-level imaging. So DSLRs are pretty special that they get you to this "minimum-required-point" where nothing short of the actual feature-film tools did before... even if they fall behind in actual quality. The GH2 is just a special anomaly like the original 5D was before.

In film school we has access to EX3's, HPX's and such... but I never attempted anything serious on them. I knew the result would always look like those goofy student/low-budget films that pretend to be like big-budget features. DSLRs were the first time I ever felt like material could ever be taken seriously at that level. So yea, I think that they are "the minum" for film... like the Rode ntg's are the minimum for sound.
 
berylium said:
Anybody else watched the Zacuto shootout?
Click to expand...

I tried, but I can't find it anywhere. A search of Vimeo turned up only Part 1. Part 2 is listed on the Zacuto web site, but all I see there is "The creator of this video has not given you permission to embed it on this domain. This is a Vimeo Plus feature."

How the hell are you guys watching Part 2!?
 
Sun said:
There isn't anything to disagree with, its not an opinion, its a fact. Advancements have nothing to do with the ability to tell a story. I have no idea why DP are worried about the outcome of this test with DSLM. Give a Formula 1 car to a fanybo wannabe racer, would Lewis Hamilton be worried? Its about the driver not the car.

Just because people have access to equipment that can rival the Gatekeepers doesn't mean a damn thing. Everybody that goes to Walmart has better access to paints and brushes than Van Gogh, but their s*%t ain't hanging in the Louvre.
Click to expand...

How is appreciating camera development inclusive to story telling? One can't appreciate the other unless they're a master story teller?

The only people who ***** about, "oh it's only about the story" are those who don't have the resources. That doesn't mean they speak THE truth. At best, they speak their truth and no one elses. Tell Cameron he would have done just as good as of a job on Avatar without the equipment he used. He's a good story teller, right?
 
yoclay said:
Wrong. Ryan Walters very clearly states at 13:30 in Episode 1 of the shootout that he decided to enable HDRx. This clearly shows up with the strange halo like highlights as the African American woman steps out the door and into the bright light of the mock exterior. Looks like a bad beauty grade from Star Trek circa 1967.
Click to expand...

From reduser.net:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...uto-shootout&p=1025209&viewfull=1#post1025209

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Mike Halper
Actually, in the video Ryan Walters says he enabled HDRX. Did they end up not utilizing it in post?
Click to expand...

The article which Oliver Peters posted but 4 posts ago outlines the decisions behind why HDRx was not used in post, apparently he shot it to cover his bases but does not like the motion aesthetics or something and was happy with the results he got without it, the article explains it better.
Click to expand...

From the article mentioned in the thread, by the actual cinematographer of the shootout:

http://thetown-crier.blogspot.ca/2012/04/zacuto-shoot-out-2012-master.html#more

To use HDRx or not to use HDRx, that is the question. For my setup, I did shoot with HDRx turned on, however, it was my plan to not use it when it came time to grade my clip. The only reason I chose to leave it turned on was to cover my bases. Had this been an actual commercial or feature production, I would have left it turned off knowing that I would not use it in post. With HDRx turned on I can confidently say that every highlight detail was captured. However, for this particular scene, my instincts told me that I did not want to see everything - most notably the ​
translite
out the window. Due to the space limitations of the stage, it had to be placed about 6 feet from the window. And the resulting image felt like a Disneyland backdrop. Retaining all of the detail in the scene was not the direction I wanted to head in aesetically. I wanted the exterior to feel bright and overexposed so that it felt more real, and less like we were on a stage.​
Click to expand...
 
b_k said:
From reduser.net:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...uto-shootout&p=1025209&viewfull=1#post1025209





From the article mentioned in the thread, by the actual cinematographer of the shootout:

http://thetown-crier.blogspot.ca/2012/04/zacuto-shoot-out-2012-master.html#more
Click to expand...

Well then if he did not use it in post, what the heck is going on with that woman who steps out into the bright light beyond the open door? It looks bloody awful. It's the first thing I noticed and that dropped this camera to the bottom of my list (without knowing which camera it was at the time of course).
 
GH2user said:
I've always wondered if people were really serious about the claims that "you can shoot on anything if the story is good" or if they're just using hyperbole. To me, the minimum required tool, if you are trying to achieve the perception of a 35mm format shot feature film, is a 7D/5D. Things like the HPX's, EX3's, and XF's just don't cut it. They may have better technical "quality", but they just do not look like movie-level imaging. So DSLRs are pretty special that they get you to this "minimum-required-point" where nothing short of the actual feature-film tools did before... even if they fall behind in actual quality. The GH2 is just a special anomaly like the original 5D was before.

In film school we has access to EX3's, HPX's and such... but I never attempted anything serious on them. I knew the result would always look like those goofy student/low-budget films that pretend to be like big-budget features. DSLRs were the first time I ever felt like material could ever be taken seriously at that level. So yea, I think that they are "the minum" for film... like the Rode ntg's are the minimum for sound.
Click to expand...
If youre defining DOF as film look, youre dead wrong.
 
I think it's funny how one guys statement can be taken so far ( although he is really respected it's just a comment ) ... anyhow I've sold a camera because of it and I find it funny how many people have mentioned it to me since...

I've said to a few people that I'm happy shooting with the GH2 and they've replied ... have you heard about this shoot out.. makes me laugh...
 
It really doesn't matter if Francis Ford Coppola liked the GH2. What really matters is if that family of four was entertained enough to sit through your film.

All the Best!

Dave
 
Yea I agree with the above.

I work primarily in the Christian market, where 35+ women dominate the sales. In general people don't notice the quality difference on a typical DVD and DVD is the king of the market so the ability to see the extra detail between an AF100, GH2, RED, or whatever else gets lost. Now of course the difference is there to MY eye, but when one of the best selling DVD's in the market is called FLYWHEEL from 2002, shot on MiniDV with 35mm adapter which means it's super soft, super noisy, etc. and not one single review out there is saying "it was soft, and noisy" then you know you have a lot of playing room. 500K+ copies sold and going up and up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG68TDaM8js You can get away with a lot in my market, and while those in it are trying to strive to increase our quality, it's content we need to focus on, acting, story, etc. because whether someone uses a RED or a DSLR or a 35mm adapter like my film Standing Firm, it's not ultimately what the people in MY market care about.

I can bumble around in these forums arguing back and forth about what camera is best for the job or for the budget, but ultimately the only person I need to satisfy in that regard is me, because where I live and breath as a filmmaker as long as things are well shot and well lit, the actual lines of resolution in the image and a few other things aren't going to register at all in the mind of my viewer. I just need to be happy with what I'm getting so I don't feel my time/effort is a waste.

My 2 cents.
 
Sun said:
You know amongst ever profession and skill you find many people who're all about the tools of that trade, not about the beauty of the work. Today's carpenters are all about the power tools. Modern racers are all about the engineering, modern musicians are all about the software and hardware. Its just like Religion, people argue over the details in the book but forgot about the meaning.

I couldn't care less about the hardware. Watching a sunset isn't about your eyes. Kissing isn't about your lips and Music isn't about your ears. Story telling isn't about the words and movies are not about the camera, lighting or lenses.

Its about your imagination.
Click to expand...

Yes but isn't that the magic of movie making? We are trying to take those images and dreams in our head and be able to capture them unto a medium and show them to someone else so that our imaginations can be experienced by others than ourselves - which connects us.

This reminds me of the movie HUGO that really touched me. A lot of audiences were board of it but it is almost a love story about film making.
 
KyleProhaska said:
Yea I agree with the above.

I work primarily in the Christian market, where 35+ women dominate the sales. In general people don't notice the quality difference on a typical DVD and DVD is the king of the market so the ability to see the extra detail between an AF100, GH2, RED, or whatever else gets lost. Now of course the difference is there to MY eye, but when one of the best selling DVD's in the market is called FLYWHEEL from 2002, shot on MiniDV with 35mm adapter which means it's super soft, super noisy, etc. and not one single review out there is saying "it was soft, and noisy" then you know you have a lot of playing room. 500K+ copies sold and going up and up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG68TDaM8js You can get away with a lot in my market, and while those in it are trying to strive to increase our quality, it's content we need to focus on, acting, story, etc. because whether someone uses a RED or a DSLR or a 35mm adapter like my film Standing Firm, it's not ultimately what the people in MY market care about.

I can bumble around in these forums arguing back and forth about what camera is best for the job or for the budget, but ultimately the only person I need to satisfy in that regard is me, because where I live and breath as a filmmaker as long as things are well shot and well lit, the actual lines of resolution in the image and a few other things aren't going to register at all in the mind of my viewer. I just need to be happy with what I'm getting so I don't feel my time/effort is a waste.

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

A good film with a rubbish PQ puts me off,so i dont agree.
 
flinty said:
A good film with a rubbish PQ puts me off,so i dont agree.
Click to expand...

I tried watching a David Lynch film that was shot on mini dv. It was unwatchable. The murkiness, the mud and the bleeding colors looked awful and just kept me distracted enough from getting into the movie. I hit the off switch after 10 min. I think it was the "inland empire" (not sure).

I pulled this off another forum:

As for the quality of the DV image, Lynch says,

"It looks different. Some would say it looks bad. But it reminds me of early 35mm, that didn't have that tight grain. When you have a poor image, there's lots more room to dream."
"But I've done tests transferring DV to film, and there are all kinds of controls to dial in the look you want."
 
berylium said:
I tried watching a David Lynch film that was shot on mini dv. It was unwatchable. The murkiness, the mud and the bleeding colors looked awful and just kept me distracted enough from getting into the movie. I hit the off switch after 10 min. I think it was the "inland empire" (not sure).

I pulled this off another forum:

As for the quality of the DV image, Lynch says,

"It looks different. Some would say it looks bad. But it reminds me of early 35mm, that didn't have that tight grain. When you have a poor image, there's lots more room to dream."
"But I've done tests transferring DV to film, and there are all kinds of controls to dial in the look you want."
Click to expand...

I think miniDV worked for Inland Empire. I felt the film was too long, but I enjoyed the gritty look for the subject matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top