GH2 Hacked GH2 Impressed in the new Zacuto shootout

[Barry_Green]

And I think it's a fool's errand ultimately. You should make content that you would want to see

I thought you were saying "content" was irrelevant? :evil:

 

[agcohn]

For me personally, it's craft.

But do most audiences really give a s*%t about craft at the end of the day, or do they just want to be entertained?

There have been many films with a great a deal of craftsmanship that have gone on to become the worst box office flops in movie history, while other films / shows have succeeded with far less craftsmanship.

How do you explain that?

I know you asked this to Gary, sorry for butting in.

If someone DID ask me, it would be Experience. Hands down. I came to this conclusion when I paid to watch THE ROOM in a theater full of drunk and high people throwing spoons at the screen...

Twice.

Nothing beats a great experience, to me. And, nothing conjures more word of mouth than a great experience. That might just be me, though.

Transformers was technically a terrible story... but, it was pretty freakin' fun in the theater.

But how does one create a great experience?

 

[Gary Huff]

I thought you were saying "content" was irrelevant? :evil:

I'm not against good content. I just think "content is king" doesn't inherently tell us anything useful.

 

[Kholi]

But how does one create a great experience?

Before I answer that, are you being circular? LoL.

 

[Gary Huff]

There have been many films with a great a deal of craftsmanship that have gone on to become the worst box office flops in movie history, while other films / shows have succeeded with far less craftsmanship. How do you explain that?

First, I said for me personally. I would never begin to claim that good craft equals box office returns. I get angry while watching a film that has a blatant disregard for craft (Melancholia, Mina se va)

Second, what example are you specifically thinking of? It's kind of hard to respond to a generality.

 

[Barry_Green]

I'm not against good content. I just think "content is king" doesn't inherently tell us anything useful.

Well, I certainly think it does.

It's like this -- the ability to type does not make someone a writer. Typing is not writing.

The ability to say words does not make one an orator. Speaking does not equal communicating.

Having something to say, and conveying it, is worth far more than accurately-spelled, gramattically-correct drivel, any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Having something to say, and conveying it competently, properly-spelled and gramattically correct, is even better (obviously).

But if you had a choice of listening to the Beatles on an old mono cassette tape, or listening to your neighbor's garage band live... well, I know which most people would prefer.

Is it not universally accepted that a good band with lousy instruments makes better music than a lousy band with great instruments?

Would it not be universally accepted that Poe writing with a pencil would make more compelling stories than your average "aspiring novelist" with a top-of-the-line computer, word processor, InDesign, and a premium-class laser printer?

Is it not painfully obvious that the longest-running sitcom on television is that way because of its content, and not its photography (seeing as it's relatively crude animation)?

 

[Gary Huff]

It's like this -- the ability to type does not make someone a writer. Typing is not writing.

Twilight is considered to be pretty god-awful writing-wise. I thought Dan Brown's DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons was poor in both writing and content. And yet, those books were runaway successes. Given that, how do you tell someone that content is king? If you shared my opinion on Dan Brown, how would you go about advising Dan Brown to make content king? Obviously, nothing I could say to him back during his book-editing phase would have made any difference.

Is it not painfully obvious that the longest-running sitcom on television is that way because of its content, and not its photography (seeing as it's relatively crude animation)?

Do you personally enjoy its content? If you happened not to, how would you go about telling "content is king" to Matt and Tray? Do you have the psychic ability to forecase the future and say, "I think your content is terrible, but you guys are going to be so successful with this."

 

[Barry_Green]

Twilight is considered to be pretty god-awful writing-wise.

Considered "by who"? Certainly the books are not considered bad by their audience! The films, I dunno, I could only stomach one of them before the retching began, so I haven't seen the others. But the Twilight books were massively popular among their intended audience, and their intended audience frickin' LOVES those books, as written.

I thought Dan Brown's DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons was poor in both writing and content. And yet, those books were runaway successes.

Have neither seen nor read them, so no opinion possible.

Given that, how do you tell someone that content is king? If you shared my opinion on Dan Brown, how would you go about advising Dan Brown to make content king? Obviously, nothing I could say to him back during his book-editing phase would have made any difference.

Dan wrote what he wrote and his audience apparently loved it, or they wouldn't have been massively popular books.

I mean, at this point, you're asking the equivalent of "what is good music?" For me, Justin Bieber is not; for billions of adolescent girls, it couldn't get any better. As far as Dan Brown goes, his content was exactly what his audience wanted, and as far as Stephenie Meyer goes, the content she produced was an absolute bullseye for her target audience.

Do you personally enjoy its content?

The Simpsons? I haven't watched a ton of it, but of the episodes I have seen, they're basically brilliant writing through and through.

Do you have the psychic ability to forecase the future and say, "I think your content is terrible, but you guys are going to be so successful with this."

Sometimes, sometimes not. Why are you even bothering asking questions like this? If people could predict what was going to hit big, there never would have been an Ishtar and we all would have invented the Pet Rock.

So let's ask a real question, one that has a real answer: of the movies that you like, WHY do you like them? Is it because they were shot on an Alexa? Is it because the makeup artist used a certain type of foundation and eye shadow? Is it because the set designer prefers to use drywall screws instead of galvanized nails?

Do any of those things even cross your mind? Do they cross the mind of the public?

 

[Gary Huff]

How can you say "content is king" then when what makes "content" is entirely subjective and unpredictable? That's all I'm saying, that's all I've ever been saying. It's a platitude that means nothing ultimately. What one person thinks is terrible writing, another thinks is tremendous. One person thinks Prometheus is a load of s*%t, another things it is sheer genius. One person hates everything that Joss Whedon has done, another thinks The Avengers was terrific.

What does "content is king" mean explicitly when whether the content itself is good or bad cannot be said with certainty?

EDIT: I would also add that I've had plenty of experiences where my own content that I thought was good at one time, I go back to it now and think it is terrible. So how does "content is king" apply to me specifically when, five years ago, I made something that I think is god-awful now?

 

[Barry_Green]

Well, I think the first place you have to start is -- without content, then what?

That kind of puts the whole discussion in place.

If the media you're creating doesn't deliver a satisfying experience, then it's a failure. And no amount of pixel-peeping and using a larger dynamic range camera is going to change that.

 

[Gary Huff]

I agree. But then again, that's like saying, "to succeed at the stock market, all you need to do is buy low and sell high!"

You can tell people day and night that all they need to do is create content that delivers a satisfying experience...it's that easy! but in practice, the failure rate is high. Which is why "content is king" is so nebulous. Even the word "content" is nebulous. What is "content" in a film? The script? The dialogue? The plotline? Characters? Cinematography? Set design? Everything in a film that comes together to make said film?

 

[JeffHarriger]

"Who wants to get whipped, and if you DO want to get whipped, aren't you being entertained?" So said Bob Dylan famously all those years ago, and it's where I usually end up if I get caught in the middle of one of these circle jerks dissecting the finer points of Story vs Storytelling and the like (it happens, and sometimes it's fun, isn't it, God help us all). Talking about a Youtube video of cats playing or pooping or whatever and a narrative film as basically the same is ridiculous, so allowing that, if it's "craft" or "content" in narrative terms, I'd say craft, too, but separating content and form is one of the biggest failures you can make and one of the reasons many movies suck, and why most are just kinda lukewarm. They're approached as separate entities, handled by different parts of the "crew", and then later discussed the same way, and so you get this crap where someone says a Wong Kar Wai picture or Wes Anderson picture are style over substance, not understanding they're one and the same, and the same is true when someone says a Cassavetes picture or something like "Mutual Appreciation" are all content, as if they just turned a camera on like catching a home movie and that was it, when in fact those movies are crafted exactly the way their makers intended, being the individuals they are, to communicate a particular emotional experience. (this is just as true of commercials. A pretty cool style developed because it could deliver the "content" succinctly, and of course no one ever remembers the products in ads! A fine paradox of sorts (and no, while it's certainly a craft, I don't consider advertising an art, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be GOOD, so bless you if you make a cool advert on the old tv someday, I appreciate it! (I still watch regular tv sometimes, I'm square) Of course most movies don't come from individuals. I don't really understand where the hell they come from, and I don't want to. Experimental film on one hand and documentary on the other are different animals again, but again they cross... pollinate? That ain't right.... I think (could be wrong! you may just want pretty pictures and rhythmic cutting or something) what Gary Huff was getting at, if in a very Twitter feed sort of way, is stating "Craft is king" or "Content is king", or even the old McLuhan-ite thing "the medium is the message" all lead into dead ends when approached dogmatically, because not only is it all so subjective (and trying to turn the subjective into objective, "sap-head objectivity" as Pauline Kael might have said), but it seems to immediately lead into that way of thinking adored by the critical community and a lot of folks who don't really think about it that much and who would never ever realize they're doing this, which is to turn everything into a more abstract intellectual construct rather than dealing with the actual experience of the movie itself. So Kholi's word - experience - is the one everyone can agree on, you can have quite an experience by yourself watching a movie, or a great time at a packed midnight show, and you'd hope that that special experience - "to fulfill the spiritual need to share a common memory" as Scorsese said - is the only thing anyone really wants out of a picture and who cares how you get there, but hey, I wouldn't want to deny the more agenda driven types whatever the hell they're getting from stuff, doesn't seem experiential, but maybe it is too. (I realize I'm talking about this in more "cinephile" type terms. I don't get stuck watching that many movies in theatres that I don't like anymore, I don't go to movies "habitually", and only rarely as what I just happen to be doing that Friday night, where it could just as well be bowling, doesn't make any difference, and that is the audience where big box office comes from, and in that regard, yeah, it's money/market saturation all the way. But, and I'm just rephrasing things others have said, if there really was a full proof model, those morons "running" Hollywood that pretend they make movies not with their GH2s or Reds but with their checkbooks would have hired somebody to tell it to them so they could repeat it infinitely, so once in a while they get egg on their face, but they don't really care. Try making a first feature with someone else's money and if it tanks see how many chances you get to actually learn and grow and improve on your mistakes. Whole other discussion, cripes!) (endless parentheticals, my trademark!)

 

[JeffHarriger]

While I was writing my dumb long thing Gary kind of made it redundant before I posted. Oh well. Keyboard still works, typing with two fingers, still slow.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

I'm not against good content. I just think "content is king" doesn't inherently tell us anything useful.

It does and it doesn't... however, in relation to the topic at hand I think it says a lot. The sentiment is that what you shoot is far more important than what you shoot it with. Whether it's with a DVX100 or an Alexa, if you have a good story, good actors, good lighting and composition, then it doesn't necessarily matter what you shot it with.

Now if you're just taking the saying on its own, then I can understand where you're coming from. I can have a beautifully shot short film with a great story and nobody will watch it. Then I can have a cruddy looking mashup of My Little Pony memes and it'll be seen by at least 100,000 people. The content in question is the entire reason why, and it's not very inspiring for the cinematographer to know that the best way to be noticed is to play to the lowest common denominator. However, I think that discussion is entirely different from the message Steve was trying to get across.

 

[Kholi]

It does and it doesn't... however, in relation to the topic at hand I think it says a lot. The sentiment is that what you shoot is far more important than what you shoot it with. Whether it's with a DVX100 or an Alexa, if you have a good story, good actors, good lighting and composition, then it doesn't necessarily matter what you shot it with.

Now if you're just taking the saying on its own, then I can understand where you're coming from. I can have a beautifully shot short film with a great story and nobody will watch it. Then I can have a cruddy looking mashup of My Little Pony memes and it'll be seen by at least 100,000 people. The content in question is the entire reason why, and it's not very inspiring for the cinematographer to know that the best way to be noticed is to play to the lowest common denominator. However, I think that discussion is entirely different from the message Steve was trying to get across.

I hope this post gets read, and not glossed over. Clearly, I agree.

 

[Barry_Green]

I agree. But then again, that's like saying, "to succeed at the stock market, all you need to do is buy low and sell high!"

Yes, and that is an integral part of success in the stock market. But if we had endless discussions about stocks, relative pricing, technical factors, intraday pricing, up-to-the-minute price comparisons, arguing about e*trade vs. ScotTrade, endless debate about whether Fidelity or Wellstrade had better customer service, and on and on and on and on...

... and NOBODY bought low or sold high, because they were too busy prattling on about whether the online interface of Merrill Lynch was not as good as the online interface of TD Ameritrade...

Then where would we be?

Wouldn't it be painfully, pointedly obvious that IT DOESN'T MATTER whether you use WellsTrade or e*trade. It doesn't matter whether you have your account at ScotTrade or Schwab. And it doesn't matter at all whether you place your trade online, or in person, or over the phone. What matters is THAT YOU TRADED.

So this 271 page dissection of a Zacuto test that basically showed that, in the proper hands, ANY of these cameras could do well enough to serve the purpose, has basically been 271 wasted posts. Look at this thread. It's ridiculous -- at least, to me it kind of is, where people are actually extracting frame grabs out of a vimeo (fer cryin' out loud) so they can pixel-peep and compare cameras THAT THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH IS WHICH!!!

Is that not the most amazing waste of time you've ever seen?

The cameras are good enough. So pick one and move on.

You can tell people day and night that all they need to do is create content that delivers a satisfying experience...it's that easy! but in practice, the failure rate is high. Which is why "content is king" is so nebulous. Even the word "content" is nebulous. What is "content" in a film? The script? The dialogue? The plotline? Characters? Cinematography? Set design? Everything in a film that comes together to make said film?

Here's the harsh, sad truth -- most people who want to make films, will never make anything worth watching. They either don't know what that stuff means, or they have nothing useful or valid to say (that anyone wants to hear). So you're asking a nebulous question. And I think you're unnecessarily complicating the matter by getting way too pedantic about it. Just like with the camera discussion.

So here's what counts and here's what doesn't: make an experience that entertains people, and you've succeeded. Obsess about cameras or in any way think that shooting on one camera will give you some advantage over shooting on some other equally-capable camera, and you will have failed before you even started.

And while this conversation goes around and around in circles, it just points out once again that if people quit wasting all their time pixel-peeping, they'd actually have more time and brainpower to devote to those thornier subjects such as "what would make for an interesting story and an entertaining experience?" Of course, maybe that's why people obsess about the pixels, so they don't HAVE to face those questions and those subjects...

 

[Barry_Green]

I agree. But then again, that's like saying, "to succeed at the stock market, all you need to do is buy low and sell high!"

Yes, and that is an integral part of success in the stock market. But if we had endless discussions about stocks, relative pricing, technical factors, intraday pricing, up-to-the-minute price comparisons, arguing about e*trade vs. ScotTrade, endless debate about whether Fidelity or Wellstrade had better customer service, and on and on and on and on...

... and NOBODY bought low or sold high, because they were too busy prattling on about whether the online interface of Merrill Lynch was not as good as the online interface of TD Ameritrade...

Then where would we be?

Wouldn't it be painfully, pointedly obvious that IT DOESN'T MATTER whether you use WellsTrade or e*trade. It doesn't matter whether you have your account at ScotTrade or Schwab. And it doesn't matter at all whether you place your trade online, or in person, or over the phone. What matters is THAT YOU TRADED.

So this 271 page dissection of a Zacuto test that basically showed that, in the proper hands, ANY of these cameras could do well enough to serve the purpose, has basically been 271 wasted posts. Look at this thread. It's ridiculous -- at least, to me it kind of is, where people are actually extracting frame grabs out of a vimeo (fer cryin' out loud) so they can pixel-peep and compare cameras THAT THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH IS WHICH!!!

Is that not the most amazing waste of time you've ever seen?

The cameras are good enough. So pick one and move on.

You can tell people day and night that all they need to do is create content that delivers a satisfying experience...it's that easy! but in practice, the failure rate is high. Which is why "content is king" is so nebulous. Even the word "content" is nebulous. What is "content" in a film? The script? The dialogue? The plotline? Characters? Cinematography? Set design? Everything in a film that comes together to make said film?

Here's the harsh, sad truth -- most people who want to make films, will never make anything worth watching. They either don't know what that stuff means, or they have nothing useful or valid to say (that anyone wants to hear). Or they have the drive, but they don't have the talent. Or they simply can't be bothered to take the years it takes to learn how to be a good storyteller. There are many reasons why the failure rate is so high. So you're asking a nebulous question. And I think you're unnecessarily complicating the matter by getting way too pedantic about it. Just like with the camera discussion.

So here's what counts and here's what doesn't: make an experience that entertains people, and you've succeeded. Obsess about cameras or in any way think that shooting on one camera will give you some advantage over shooting on some other equally-capable camera, and you will have failed before you even started.

And while this conversation goes around and around in circles, it just points out once again that if people quit wasting all their time pixel-peeping, they'd actually have more time and brainpower to devote to those thornier subjects such as "what would make for an interesting story and an entertaining experience?" Of course, maybe that's why people obsess about the pixels, so they don't HAVE to face those questions and those subjects...

 

[DBP]

Of course, maybe that's why people obsess about the pixels, so they don't HAVE to face those questions and those subjects...

I really like this quote. It's true, it's way easier to focus on the minute technical details than to write or create anything of merit. I know tons of friends who are in bands, who can produce well, play their instruments very capably... can pick out audio nuances etc etc... they also engage in snobbery by mocking a song for being only a three chord wonder.

How many of them have, or can write a three chord hit song? Not one. It's very, very difficult to do.

I fear I'm gonna sound overly negative to the community here...but even with the vast majority of user films here, there's rarely any real good ones. They sure look good, and often sound good. They are competently crafted... but from an entertainment perspective, they stink. I'm stuck thinking "that's pretty good for an indie, low budget random guy on the internet", instead of just thinking "that's good". Maybe that's just me. All that's changed over the years is the quality of the camera. Instead of being ugly looking garbage, now it's good looking garbage. Heck, I've posted a few myself that fall directly in that category. A good, impactful message is now way more rare for me to see than a good looking/sounding movie. A lot of people have the latter down pat here. The former is much more rare. I'm including myself in that category too, before anyone thinks I'm all high and mighty.

Gosh, I don't even know where the direction of this discussion is going any more, haha.

 

[Kholi]

Y

So this 271 page dissection of a Zacuto test that basically showed that, in the proper hands, ANY of these cameras could do well enough to serve the purpose, has basically been 271 wasted posts. Look at this thread. It's ridiculous -- at least, to me it kind of is, where people are actually extracting frame grabs out of a vimeo (fer cryin' out loud) so they can pixel-peep and compare cameras THAT THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH IS WHICH!!!

Is that not the most amazing waste of time you've ever seen?

The cameras are good enough. So pick one and move on.

With no offense meant to anyone, yes, I agree with you that the frame grabs etc are pretty crazy. That's coming from a super pixel-peeper. xD

BUT, part of that is because they chose to conceal the camera labels (to whatever benefit they've decided it would be) forcing the entire community to guess which is which... for a month.

That's the biggest flaw of this entire thing, to me. All the work done, and by not releasing which camera is which you're back to square one: people guessing which is which and totally missing the point. And, I don't blame them. If you want them to pay attention to what you're trying to tell them, why distract them with a month-long guessing game? If it's not about the cameras, and it's about the lighting, then what's the value in holding the camera labels for so long? Or, is it already recognized that the lack of camera labels is what'll keep people talking the longest?

Tell us which is which and move on to what you really want to say.

Well, that's just me, anyway.

 

[Kholi]

And I'm not telling anyone how to run their machine.

I'm just pointing out that even though it's not supposed to be about the cameras, by concealing which is which, it's still making the cameras the main event. I know it will be revealed in a month, there will just be a month of speculation and back and forthing, or people will just lose interest in this thing altogether.