GH2 Hacked GH2 Impressed in the new Zacuto shootout

I agree 100% that it's about the content. Call me crazy but personally one of my favorite things is Soderbergh's K-Street series. Shot on dvx100's with natural lighting, and if you were to analyze just the image quality you'd be disgusted. But the content and style is so interesting that I'll be watching and laughing and loving it until my days are over. And the same thing goes with my crappy Brazilian DVD transfers of Falstaff and The Magnificent Ambersons.

BTW Steve I thought ep1 of Revenge was just outstanding. Sure I'd prefer waiting 2 weeks instead of 2 months to complete it, but I think the 'content' will be worth it.
 
@ Jeff Harringer, "166 pages for a romantic comedy sounds like a little much. Do you write a lot of prose description in there?"

99% dialog and 1% prose description.There are four main characters, each looking for there version of love and it took 166 pages to give them a three dimensional character. Each scene is funny or pushes the plot forward. Very little is fluff which I could cut but it would hurt to cut out the other scenes which are very funny or push the plot forward.

"lot of talented people HATE their day job. They work hard at something they don't care about, whether it's an office job, washing dishes, or an acting gig or photography gig with no soul, get paid probably not enough, and THAT is where they're being exploited. Money and morality are not the same and there's NO equality. They get nothing from it and would really get off on helping you make your film, as long you're really collaborating with them, if they can express themselves and be a part of it. They WANT TO WORK HARD on a piece of art, not for money, but because at a certain point they can't not do it anymore."

Yes people are desperate but you don't need to exploit that desperation. You have to pay them something.
 
zacuto said:
To be honest with you. Again don't take this the wrong way but it will be very hard to sell you finished film without stars in it. That's just a fact of life. Are there example of films doing well without stars, yes? But not many. A feature is such a huge endeavor, I would recommend a brilliant short that shows your prowess then use that to try to get a studio project, but again you need contacts and luck to do that. Making it in the Film biz is going to be hard. You are going to need that drive that everyone interviewed in my film is talking about. My problem is that everyone here is not listening to every single word that these interviewees is saying because it is carefully crafted to give you the story of how to become a success from those who have. Watch again and focus on the interviews and not the test. I can appreciate you not wanted to have to have people work for free but doing a 166 page project requires a huge amount of money--just for food alone. I see no problem as a first timer in finding other first timers who would like to help you. What I could recommend is if you have a great script, I might be able to convince an ASC cinematographer to do your film for fairly inexpensive fee if they like it and have an open window add . That would legitimacy to your film. I'd also prefer that you day job was in the film business, even if filming weddings and or corporate films. Every time you shoot you get better and that is critical. You don't wan't to be learning on your feature. I worked in the corporate world for 20 years, made over 600 projects. Now when I start a project, I have a confidence and knowledge base that is huge but still every time I do a project I learn new things, I make new mistakes and it's painful and hurts the piece. That's the process, but it's much better and you don't make the silly mistakes that come from basic experience. Shoot weddings, that's what I started with in the late 70's early 80's, it's like the bootcamp of production, if you can make it there, you can do anything. It's like war, it's a one take, one chance environment.
Click to expand...

@Steve Weiss
"To be honest with you. Again don't take this the wrong way but it will be very hard to sell you finished film without stars in it. That's just a fact of life. Are there example of films doing well without stars, yes? But not many."

I have one word to answer that: "Clerks". This film had a horrible grainy black and white footage, flat lighting and no stars. It was a huge success at the film festival for two reasons: the screenplay was funny and the acting was strong.

"if you have a great script, I might be able to convince an ASC cinematographer to do your film for fairly inexpensive fee if they like it and have an open window"

I thank you for offering such help. I live in Southern California so I would love to sit with anyone about my film.

"I'd also prefer that you day job was in the film business, even if filming weddings and or corporate films."

I can't do that. My day job required a lot of post-graduate education and I do something profoundly important in my community and I can't give up my profession. My wife would kill me if I did what you are asking. I need to continue my day job and make my film part time. This makes it harder to get an ASC cinematographer, SAG actors and other crew to commit to a long project which could take longer to make because I would like to make it part time. It is not impossible so please don't say this to me. I have done much harder tasks in life than making a movie.

"Every time you shoot you get better and that is critical. You don't wan't to be learning on your feature. I worked in the corporate world for 20 years, made over 600 projects. Now when I start a project, I have a confidence and knowledge base that is huge but still every time I do a project I learn new things, I make new mistakes and it's painful and hurts the piece. That's the process, but it's much better and you don't make the silly mistakes that come from basic experience."

Point well taken. I need to practice with my GH2 and the lights I bought for $1000. Maybe I should buy a dolly and practice using my follow focus. I know you are going to say that this is the point of your shootout but other obstacles are present as I have discussed before. I will consider it a challenge and work hard to achieve success. Cheers.
 
It's interesting how this (perhaps inevitably) evolved into a content vs. craft debate. I believe that content is king, but history shows us that there have been many very bad kings, but kings none-the-less.

Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" sums up a lot of the argument. Breathtakingly beautiful. Lots of craft, lots of money.

I love that Zacuto did the test this way, I only wish they would have included the AF100 and a 5D.
 
Letzring said:
Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" sums up a lot of the argument. Breathtakingly beautiful. Lots of craft, lots of money.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it bankrupted United Artists. Certainly though, it was a testament to gorgeous craftsmanship that the audiences just didn't care about.
 
Barry_Green said:
Yes, and it bankrupted United Artists. Certainly though, it was a testament to gorgeous craftsmanship that the audiences just didn't care about.
Click to expand...


It's also considered as the movie that drove the previous total control away from the director and back to the producers and bean counters. Lovely legacy it had.
 
But, at the time, Michael Cimino probably thought he was providing great content for the mass audience. Hindsight is 20/20.
 
JeffHarriger said:
rizibo - I like where you're coming from (and I like how derailed this topic is), and as someone who's really a writer first - and one who writes absurdly long drafts at that - I respect the work that goes into any screenplay, but I do have to say that 166 pages for a romantic comedy sounds like a little much. Do you write a lot of prose description in there? Some great writers do (Tarantino for an obvious example), but it's not really the meat and potatoes, and could scare some folks away. I think the minute per page maxim and, really, ANY rule is basically BS, so please take EVERYTHING I say with grains of salt, but the most beloved romantic comedies are, like, 90 minutes, especially no budget ones. You talk about finding a producer like you can just do it, and I don't know your connections, but I'm guessing you won't have to worry about your film going the way of Greed or Magnificent Ambersons. So, what DOES balloon the cost of movies, preventing them from reaching their full potential (and as usual, Renoir is right)? Well, you know what it is, and it's great that you have a moral center (it's really great, honestly) and maybe your day job rocks and you can pay to shoot a 166 page movie paying everyone full wages out of your pocket. But, guess what, a lot of talented people HATE their day job. They work hard at something they don't care about, whether it's an office job, washing dishes, or an acting gig or photography gig with no soul, get paid probably not enough, and THAT is where they're being exploited. Money and morality are not the same and there's NO equality. They get nothing from it and would really get off on helping you make your film, as long you're really collaborating with them, if they can express themselves and be a part of it. They WANT TO WORK HARD on a piece of art, not for money, but because at a certain point they can't not do it anymore. I'm not saying lie to them and say they'll get all this money on the back end when we've killed at Sundance. Be honest with them and yourself about why you want to do it. Some will say no thanks and go back to doing crappy work where they get a few bucks, and everyone needs to get that somewhere. I'm not a 'professional'. Can't do it. I have no interest in the movie business. Hate it. I work crappy jobs and save what I can so I can spend all that on gear and financing my own stuff so some day I can set aside the time to have a vacation where I work harder than ever before, with no delusions about monetary returns, but because I love cinema more than almost anything, and for no other reason. I'll do everything I can to get it out there. (slight aside, I will always always always trade money for more time. Kubrick knew what was up. Malick knows what's up. This test shows what's up. Have the time? You can make it look great. Have the time? Get those performances right. Have the time? You can re-shoot that scene that wasn't so well written after all (research what happened the first week on "There Will Be Blood" if you haven't). The MODEL needs to change) If I can finish my first feature, I'll show it for free for anyone that wants to give me a couple hours of their precious time when they have so many other options. I'll set up my own HD projector wherever they want it. Coffee shop willing to play it? Great. Regional festival? Great. Anything that isn't the crap internet. Would I do that for every film? No. But on this one, no question. Trying to make your film the WAY the people you cited made theirs is where the problems of the independent filmmaker come into play, and working around it all while maintaining quality and getting the results you want is nearly impossible, I have no answers and there's enough threads and coffee shop discussions on this already. But it's worth figuring out. It totally is. Think about Welles again. When the fit hit the shan and all was going wrong, did he throw in the towel? No, he threw out the model. Orson was MAKING MOVIES until his dying days, piecing them together, just working because it was in his blood and he loved it. He could never even afford to finish them, but that had become almost secondary. (and note the people with money saying what a genius he was and what a shame his film was taken away, they sure never bothered to help him out with a check that wouldn't affect them in the least - accept that you're pretty much alone in "that world", as nice as they look on Oscar night patting each other on the back) So basically I felt like typing....
Click to expand...

Excuse me if you're typing on an iphone or something that doesn't allow for paragraphs somehow but I find it ironic that you question the length of a screenplay whilst writing one of the longest paragraphs I have ever seen...
 
Gary Huff said:
But if by "content" you mean everything from a high-concept story to a squirrel giving a funny look into the camera for three seconds, then "content" ceases to mean anything.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. This is 'art snobbery' you speak off. It matters not whether you put 300,000 man hours into a 'high-concept' (just that phrase alone makes me ill from its total lack of meaning other than - look at me and my uber complex story (which might be boring and crappy as hell).

George Lucas thought his prequels were 'high-concept'

Give me the squirrel giving a GENUINE funny look into the camera for three seconds over that ANY DAY!

In the end - audience connection and emotional response are all that matter. The audience can be engaged by a high concept if the concept GRABS them... not just because the movie maker thinks 'wow have I got an epic here'.

I'll give you an example of a character I have. First - a simple 'low concept' version:


That gets so much more views and compliments.

Then, an actual 'high concept' version that possibly no one gets but I thought I was being so smarty pants genius:


- Blackout
 
Last edited:
rizibo said:
@Steve Weiss
"To be honest with you. Again don't take this the wrong way but it will be very hard to sell you finished film without stars in it. That's just a fact of life. Are there example of films doing well without stars, yes? But not many."

I have one word to answer that: "Clerks". This film had a horrible grainy black and white footage, flat lighting and no stars. It was a huge success at the film festival for two reasons: the screenplay was funny and the acting was strong.

"if you have a great script, I might be able to convince an ASC cinematographer to do your film for fairly inexpensive fee if they like it and have an open window"

I thank you for offering such help. I live in Southern California so I would love to sit with anyone about my film.

"I'd also prefer that you day job was in the film business, even if filming weddings and or corporate films."

I can't do that. My day job required a lot of post-graduate education and I do something profoundly important in my community and I can't give up my profession. My wife would kill me if I did what you are asking. I need to continue my day job and make my film part time. This makes it harder to get an ASC cinematographer, SAG actors and other crew to commit to a long project which could take longer to make because I would like to make it part time. It is not impossible so please don't say this to me. I have done much harder tasks in life than making a movie.

"Every time you shoot you get better and that is critical. You don't wan't to be learning on your feature. I worked in the corporate world for 20 years, made over 600 projects. Now when I start a project, I have a confidence and knowledge base that is huge but still every time I do a project I learn new things, I make new mistakes and it's painful and hurts the piece. That's the process, but it's much better and you don't make the silly mistakes that come from basic experience."

Point well taken. I need to practice with my GH2 and the lights I bought for $1000. Maybe I should buy a dolly and practice using my follow focus. I know you are going to say that this is the point of your shootout but other obstacles are present as I have discussed before. I will consider it a challenge and work hard to achieve success. Cheers.
Click to expand...

I appreciate you honest and sincere response and all I can say is it won't be easy but you seem very dedicated and driven and I hope achieve your dream. Remember what Victor said in the last line of my film "if you have the talent, the drive and you are willing to do what it takes, you can make a pretty damn good film" Let me know if I can help you in anyway: if you need me to lend you some gear, advice or consultation, happy to do it. Steve
 
rizibo - I get it, like I said "grain of salt." I don't want anyone but me cutting my screenplays, either. I'm not one to preach the Gospel of Bob McKee, and don't care for any dogmas applied to cinema. "Clerks", "Metropolitan" (on that one Whit Stillman occasionally busted out his How To Make a Film book on set, didn't bother anyone when he was at awards ceremonies with Martin Scorsese watching Kevin Costner win a bunch of prizes), the examples are out there. Knock it out of the park.

Searcher - Thanks! The Can You Write A Sentence or Paragraph As Long As Old William Faulkner contest is coming up, and I'm inspired to submit that one and see how it comes out! And you're excused, but, now I'm whispering this just to you: it wasn't typed on an iPhone. I don't even HAVE one of those. Please, between us....
 
Gary Huff said:
But, at the time, Michael Cimino probably thought he was providing great content for the mass audience. Hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...

When it comes to content, length is the most important factor (almost one million viewers can't be wrong):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpLLq6WEDNo

Seriously though, I found the Red Letter Media reviews of the "Star Wars" prequels far more entertaining than the actual films themselves, simply because the content was better. The movies cost tens of millions to produce, the reviews cost maybe $10.50. The movies had better production value, cinematography, production design, etc but the content of the reviews was much better.
 
Poor Michael Cimino can't get a break. He probably thought, "This thread will be safe. Herewith nothing can be blamed on Heaven's Gate! They'll appreciate my Quixotic ambition and forgive my pretensions and spend-thriftiness!" Then ADHD types with an internet connection like me threw it out of whack. (I only blame Cimino for muddying the conversational waters when discussing Gates of Heaven, or even Days of Heaven. I can't be the only one comically saddled with having to make these clarifications (to a very patient public.)) I still have no idea which camera is which, and I shoot with one of them all the time. Why did this shootout have to be so vengeful?
 
Barry and Jeff, you guys are giving Michael Cimino way too much credit. How do I know? Well first and foremost, I read "Final Cut" by Steven Bach. It gives a lot of insight into what went on with making that film. Also am freinds w/ someone who knew Vilmos Zigmond from back in the Hungry days when they were filming the revolution. And I know people close to Mr. Cimino in NYC because we were neighbors. That show was a drug induced out of control mess. Yes they got some very beautiful images. But running line was "Who do I have to f_ck to get off of this film?" And it became not a joke.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I don't doubt it, BobbyMurcerFan. I was mostly just making a joke. Although I do like the first section of that movie, I would never watch the whole thing again, and certainly it's the production itself that was SO troublesome, not that the movie was so terrible. There is something to be said for the crazy follies, but it only goes so far. (Quiet as it's kept, I don't really like The Deer Hunter after it's opening passages, either.)
 
berylium said:
There's a lot of discussion of story and content, and in regards to the Zacuto shootout, I think that's missing the point. As a cinematographer, my interest in the The zacuto shootout is to see how cameras fare in a certain setup. If you wanna discuss scripts, acting etcetera, I'm sure there's other areas in the forum for that. For me, the shootout is about cameras.
Click to expand...

It's like telling a contractor that the most important thing is the design of the house, not the construction materials or even the craftmanship. Sure, he should know that but he's not the architect. He's the builder and his job is to build a particular design as best he can. Same deal with cinematographers. Knowing that "content is King" is all well and good but it doesn't help any cinematographer do his/her job, which is to try and make ANY content worthwhile.

zacuto said:
He's right content will and always will be king. No one is going to watch a movie and say the movie sucked but boy it looked great. The overall takeaway is the movie sucks.
Click to expand...

People say that all the time. Even my non-film bizz friends say that all the time.

Many of the top-grossing films of all time are little more than "famous star + fancy visuals = blockbuster hit." Some films don't even have the stars, just the visuals - "Koyaanisqatsi" comes to mind.

zacuto said:
stop trying to believe that you are a jack of all trades. I'm not. I couldn't write my way out of a bag and wouldn't try.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so why are you telling cinematographers to stop caring about their equipment? Would you tell a professional driver to stop caring about his cars? A cook to stop caring about his kitchen? No? Then why tell a cinematographer to stop thinking about cameras?

Obviously equipment is only one part of our job. But it is a part - and undeniably a pretty important part. The idea that we should just stop comparing cameras is ridiculous. It's part of our job to know which camera is better for any given project. Maybe the top % of ASC cinematographers don't have to worry about that anymore, but the other 99.9% of working cinematographers do. Even the top ASC guys still have to pay someone to worry about it.
 
Last edited:
JeffHarriger said:
Oh, I don't doubt it, BobbyMurcerFan. I was mostly just making a joke. Although I do like the first section of that movie, I would never watch the whole thing again, and certainly it's the production itself that was SO troublesome, not that the movie was so terrible. There is something to be said for the crazy follies, but it only goes so far. (Quiet as it's kept, I don't really like The Deer Hunter after it's opening passages, either.)
Click to expand...

Jeff,

What's interesting is that "Apocalypse Now" paved the way for "Heaven's Gate." "AN" was also a drug induced mess, with the lead actor getting fired, his replacedment having a heart attack, real dead bodies on sets, copious drug usage, a civil war waging nearby, threats of suicide by the director, huge explosions, huge Marlon Brando and millions of feet of film... which all came together to make a masterpiece. United Artists was hoping for the same thing to happen with "HG," but it didn't.

BTW, I do love the scene with the fiddle playing rollerskater. It's really oddly beautiful to me.
 
Coppola tried to one up Cimino's folly with One From The Heart, and be darned if he didn't almost make it! Not that that one doesn't have it's charms, too, I suppose. Yeah, I always tell people to watch "Hearts Of Darkness", and a lot of times they're not really film geeks or anything, and I have to say, No, you won't believe it... (and even that's only the stuff Ellie was around for!)

I, too, am very fond of that scene in HG you mentioned in particular. Lovely.
 
Here was my reaction to the Revenge Shootout.
My first experience, before even viewing the doc, was the title.
It had the word "shootout" in it, so I expected a contest of some sort.
Once I started the doc, I watched a lot of interviews, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
Then it had a back-to-back presentation of 9 cameras labeled A-I, which were representative of how each (mystery) camera had performed for its cinematographer - who had creative input on contrast ratio for the scene, as well as creative input for the final grade.
After that, I don't remember much, though I watched to the end, because I was challenged to try and figure out which camera was which (show me a filmmaker who doesn't love a challenge, and I'll show you a lolz cat video without the subtitles).
It didn't take long to realize that some of the images I responded to the most were from the cheaper cameras. Which then set me to head scratching.
What's the value of a $1800/day camera if a free one can come this close? Some have said the whole range of cameras had quality differences of no more than 15% - excluding the iPhone.
Was I supposed to take away the idea that if I spend more time lighting with my little Panny that I should expect results similar to an F65 handled by a competent cinematographer?

I didn't think that was the intent of the doc, but it did have me thinking.
Sure, the discussion was about craft and skill and all that stuff that has been discussed within this thread. And the reason I pixel - peep is because it is the easiest way of getting a Wow reaction - there's more WOW in watching grass grow with a GH2 than with an HVX 200. I'm not saying it's art. But AE CS6 renders twice as fast as CS5.5 - which is like getting a faster processor for the price of an upgrade. It won't make my animations better, per se, but it's definitely fun to have a little bit more power to play with. Pixel peeping isn't meant to replace movie-making - it's just a way to see if your tools are getting any sharper. Skill is still skill, and if you're not doing it, you're not learning squat.
I get that.

But, as I said, I saw "shootout," then saw interviews with luminaries, and then watched footage where el-cheapo was making me as happy as el-cher-o and I had to sit back and wonder what I should conclude.

My first question was, "Were all the cinematographers focused on the same goal?"
ie. If I were in the situation of running the GH2, what would be my focus?
For me, it would be to make that camera look as great as I could. I'd go for flat enough lighting that I could push saturation and contrast in almost any direction in the grade.

But what of the other cinematographers? Were they approaching this the same way? The F65 had no light adjustments made at all. Alexa had 1 change. I thought that was very interesting, considering the original set was lit to "test" the cameras - ie. the high contrast nature of the scene was designed to be a challenge, not a walk in the park.

So, I wondered why. Could it have been that the scene simply was not a challenge to the F65/Alexa? Or, could it have been that the operators of the higher end cameras preferred preserving the shadows under the coffetable for a more natural look, knowing their cameras could handle the range, or could it have been that they felt slightly compelled to show the camera's superior dynamic range by doing as little as possible to the scene to better show off the features of their cameras?

I can't tell what they were thinking, but whatever they had as goals, it did effect the footage - not to mention their choices in grade.

That said, I concluded that I couldn't really "learn" anything about the cameras from these clips. And that maybe I shouldn't. What I could learn is how my interpretation of a "creative" task does take some of the science out of it. And it was a lot of fun to analyze.

I went so far as to contact one of the players and ask what was going through his mind as he shot, and if he felt everyone was thinking the same thing.
His reply was satisfying to me in that it confirmed that they weren't all focused on achieving the same thing at all. The more I thought about that, the more it made sense that top-shelf creatives would naturally be more inclined to leave their signature on a shot, when permitted to be creative, than to follow a simple process of trying to prove the camera was good or not. That was made clear in the yet-to-be-released episode, so why be redundant.

So, from what I gather, in spite of the hook "shootout" (and I now realize that the "revenge" part is meant as an "un" like the 7-up being the "uncola") I was really just supposed to sit back and enjoy it.

Which I did. I guess the mystery of the cameras turned it into an analysis tease, for me, followed by a lot of deep thinking, and eventually back to just enjoying the interviews and discussions again.


I'd also like to add my own comment on the content and tools debate.
I look at it like the old puzzle - if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Well, if a great bit of content happens, and it only gets captured by a POS $20 cell phone, was it really worth it?
And that's the ultimate challenge - marrying a great concept to a film through great effort without doing anything to make it even harder. As we all know, film-making is already hard enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top