GH2 Hacked GH2 Impressed in the new Zacuto shootout

[keylight]

I think you made a lot of really good points in your post, and I appreciate all the work that went into the shootout.

However....

If you shoot the most gorgeous film shot on a RED or Alexa and the story is s*%t. It's going in the garbage. No matter what hairs we want to split about these cameras, it's still boils down to story, acting, directing, sound, lighting and camera: IN THAT ORDER......

The bottom line is if you watch this as a film and not just a shootout--hence revenge--it should motivate you to go out and shoot, work on your lighting, watch and see life (as Janusz says) so you can reproduce it on film.

It would have been nice if the story you were telling was shot in a more serious way. Ithink the camera work (or style) that was used to shoot interviews did a dis-service to all of the talented people who were interviewed. It sort of flew in the face of some of the great things that were being said. And "do as I say, not as I do" isn't the best way to convey the "go out and shoot, work on your lighting, watch and see life (as Janusz says) so you can reproduce it on film" motif.

I disagree with the order of the list you gave: "story, acting, directing, sound, lighting and camera: IN THAT ORDER......" If any one of those is bad, it'll hurt the whole.

A few of my favorite "what were they thinking" shots (you can view a large version here) :

 

[L1N3ARX]

Why all the hate? I couldn't imagine doing 1/10 of what was done in the Zacuto shootout by myself, therefore it has immense value, if only for the unlikelihood of seeing the best cameras out today in tandem. Personally I think the camera I shoot, the GH2, would have been better represented in different lighting / grading, but man, I'm definitely grateful I got to compare just for a moment, all the cameras I dream about having. We all wish that we could see our own "vision" of what a camera shootout should be, but let's try to enjoy what we got... as this is the ONLY thing even close to an objective comparison between all the big players as we're gonna get : )

 

[Jester2138]

That's exactly what this documentary is trying to dispell. The camera is not the be-all end-all tool that determines quality.

We know that camera is less important that talent, we've known that for ages. It's not like this is some great new idea that new cameras are finally letting us see. My problem stems from the fact that Zacuto labels this a camera test while it is completely useless for test purposes. We all learned the "scientific method" in middle school and so we should all know that in a test you must reduce the number of variables to an absolute minimum or you cannot know where any resulting differences are coming from.

It's like if Mercedes-Benz was testing the agility of cars from various manufacturers and got ten different drivers to drive ten different cars on ten different tracks... Ridiculous! They wouldn't know a thing about the cars - or even the drivers! They would have to get one driver to drive the same pattern with each car on the same track to isolate the variables...

As a cinematographer, I can't take anything from part 1. Any difference in the cameras might simply be a difference in the lighting, or the lighting change may actually be a camera quirk. I don't need to know about how great cinematographers are and how important they are - I know that already! I am one!

I was so bored to tears I wasn't watching too close... This plays like an infomercial that wants to be the "Visions of Light" doc...

I think they need to decide if they want to put out a camera test or a self-indulgent "cinematographers as heroes" film... (or if they decide to go in the DP-documentary route, give us some insightful topics).

+1

this is the ONLY thing even close to an objective comparison between all the big players as we're gonna get

Hopefully part 2 will be more interesting. Zacuto has the power to make it so and thus I really hope they do!

I think what Zacuto is trying to do is great (and the original was terrific) and I really wanted to like this one and say positive things about it.

 

[stefancolson]

So the point of Zacuto's elaborate, expensive camera test (for which the apparently went to great lengths to make relatively empirical comparisons between cameras) is that camera tests don't matter?

Why not just make a film about the value of artistry and the unimportance of equipment? Wouldn't shooting the same short scene with 9 DPs left to their own devices (each with a different camera and lighting setup) better illustrate that point? The meat of the documentary is a camera test. Relatively uninteresting subjects and scenes lit with technical - not artistic - intent, with great pains taken to insure that each camera is tested under identical circumstances. If the film is about camera tests, let's focus on the camera tests. If the film is about the craft and unimportance of camera choice, wow us with artistry and make us forget about the cameras.

I was really looking forward to this years test, but I just didn't get what they were trying to say. It seemed to be two conflicting messages. Hopefully part two either focuses on the tests or gives the masters some space to talk about the craft.

*Edit* On second reading my comments come across kind of harsh. I really like the idea that Steve and the Zacuto folks are trying to get across (that a camera is only one piece of the puzzle and far secondary to more important questions of content, talent, and skill) and appreciate all of the effort and work that went into this film. I just don't agree that a camera test is the right medium through which to express that idea.

 

[John Caballero]

What this should finally tell us once and for all, and for those who pretend not to know, is that a truck full of lights is far more important than the camera. If you don't even have a basic box of lights, no camera is going to make you a better shooter. Learn how to light, don't crutch on the fact that camera x can see in the dark.

I don't know what part of this people don't understand. It is so ridiculous to hear the talk about a lens not being fast enough for shooting in low light and all that crap. Even in the middle of a Manhattan street or in Hollywood at 12 noon you see a truck full of lights blasting at a set. You light a scene well and the camera will perform at its best.

 

[stefancolson]

I don't know what part of this people don't understand. It is so ridiculous to hear the talk about a lens not being fast enough for shooting in low light and all that crap. Even in the middle of a Manhattan street or in Hollywood at 12 noon you see a truck full of lights blasting at a set. You light a scene well and the camera will perform at its best.

I don't want to not light, I just want to light with smaller and less power hungry fixtures. Why rent a generator or huge truck full of lights when I can get the same image with small fixtures on battery power thanks to cameras that can deliver a good image in low light. Nobody longs for the days of slow film stocks that required massive amounts of light just to get decent exposure, yet so many don't acknowledge the fact that great low light performance is a good thing. If I can use 650s where I would have gone for 2ks then I'm a very happy camper.

 

[Philldaagony]

I can't wait till they reveal the cameras in part 2. So many of the critics on the message boards and across the internet are going to be amazed at which cameras are which in relation to their top three cameras and which cameras they think they've labeled correctly. Hopefully I can bite my tongue for the next month.

 

[PaPa]

I really wish that before all of the DP's had time to adjust lighting for their cameras, that they all shot a few seconds under the exact same conditions so that we can see what camera does what under the SAME given lighting conditions. We can draw our own conclusions as to which ones need more boost in the shadows, etc...

I'm going to post this here as well since it's relevant to the discussion.

My guess is that the GH2 is camera G. Slightly different focal length ( tighter ), depth of field seems slightly larger. And if I'm correct, i'll also go out and guess that they shot with Cinema profile due to the highlight handling on the house backdrop. A and F are definitely my favourite. B and D being my last favourite and the rest have their own appeal.

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/2916/allimages.jpg

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2379/cameraa.jpg

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6141/camerabvd.jpg

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/435/camerac.jpg

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1959/camerad.jpg

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7426/cameraem.jpg

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1120/cameraff.jpg

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6426/camerag.jpg

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6938/camerahq.jpg

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6292/camerait.jpg

 

[zacuto]

I second that.

For me personally, this is the most valuable one of all your shootouts and I´m looking forward to the next two parts.

Okay, some of the framing in the interviews was a bit odd, but who cares?
I would be happy to just hear the audio, cause what those old hands have to say is the point,
not seeing them saying it.

best, Frank

What is odd about the framing? I loved it. Not everything has to have leading space in the traditional sense.

 

[zacuto]

The day I was at NAB, the Zacuto presentation booth was having 'technical difficulties', since I was only there for one day, I missed my chance to see the presentation on a better screen, and more directly than via small screen and internet.

I sort of point this out, since everyone other than the few who did see bigscreen, direct presentations, are in fact basing their opinions on 'small screens with compressed data'...

Yup I'll agree with that. It's like shopping for a TV. Once it's in your living room it's not going to matter that something else is better or worse.

I learned this when I was a teenager working with another guy on our first feature film. We were shooting on DV and I hated the look. Just hated it. All I wanted to be doing was shooting on 16mm. Eventually my partner got so pissed at my negativity toward DV that during one of our production meetings he just walked out without saying a word and we ended the production right there. It wasn't until a while later I realized it was my fault. I let my obsession with 16mm get in the way of actually doing a good job with DV. For seeing DV as a viable medium and more importantly for seeing the camera as just a tool. I should have been putting the emphasis on what we were creating, not what we were creating it with. I shot and completed my next feature film on DV, screened it in a theater to an audience and no one cared it was DV, neither did I. By that point I had learned my lesson.

I would like you to look at this. this video was shot entirely on a canon XL1 mini DV cameras. Jens was the DP and is a master of light. He also used tons of filters, like sunset, blue and ND grads, and my wife was our editor, she is incredible. Still works for me: https://vimeo.com/7242177 I didn't do a very good job of getting it from SD to the internet but when watched on a monitor is looks gorgeous.

 

[zacuto]

The day I was at NAB, the Zacuto presentation booth was having 'technical difficulties', since I was only there for one day, I missed my chance to see the presentation on a better screen, and more directly than via small screen and internet.

I sort of point this out, since everyone other than the few who did see bigscreen, direct presentations, are in fact basing their opinions on 'small screens with compressed data'...

Yup I'll agree with that. It's like shopping for a TV. Once it's in your living room it's not going to matter that something else is better or worse.

I learned this when I was a teenager working with another guy on our first feature film. We were shooting on DV and I hated the look. Just hated it. All I wanted to be doing was shooting on 16mm. Eventually my partner got so pissed at my negativity toward DV that during one of our production meetings he just walked out without saying a word and we ended the production right there. It wasn't until a while later I realized it was my fault. I let my obsession with 16mm get in the way of actually doing a good job with DV. For seeing DV as a viable medium and more importantly for seeing the camera as just a tool. I should have been putting the emphasis on what we were creating, not what we were creating it with. I shot and completed my next feature film on DV, screened it in a theater to an audience and no one cared it was DV, neither did I. By that point I had learned my lesson.

Many differences to what Zacuto might envisage for a filmmaker shootout.

- Competitions don't often have an Emmy winning documentary about them
- With a festival or competition you don't get to see the film being made and you don't get to see the filmmakers making choices about actors, crew, scripting, etc.
- With a festival nobody is really on the same budget or starting from the same point, so many variables other than just talent

Give talent a level playing field, make a great documentary about it from start to finish and then see who comes out tops.

We would learn SO much from watching a docu like this.

Not totally sure what you are saying here, I need a translation for dummies like me.
1. I think 2hr to 192hr competitions are a complete waste of time and stupid. It's hard enough to make a film, narrative or documentary, why do it with your hands tied behind your back. Stop wasting you time with nonsense like that and make the very best thing you can make using all the time you need.
2. If you listen to the cinematographers in this ep and as you will hear more in eps. 2 & 3, DP's stand next to the director and work with him to create their vision, and in many respects do get involved in story by knowing when to do that infamous close up and consulting the Director as his number 1. Many DP's told me they were actually the Directors (in theory) on many of their films. Also, many Hollywood producers tell the DP to make sure we get what we need to cut, especially with first and second time directors. DP's are extremely involved in the storytelling process, both visually and through lighting as Frederic and Stephen Goldbatt told us in this ep when talking about subtext. And at our level where you are wearing many hats, for sure DP's are involved in the story telling process.
3. My documentaries are my films, they are not tests. They are a reflection of my ideas and directorial vision. They program was called "REVENGE" of the great camera shootout. The revenge part is all of the subtext of the DP's telling you what is truly important. That's not to say that Bruce's test was not accurate and unimpeachable. When you see the comments of the folks who viewed it in the theater you will get that theatrical experience and I've seen it a ton of times in the theater and I can see the same things I saw there as how I seem them on the web.

 

[zacuto]

The day I was at NAB, the Zacuto presentation booth was having 'technical difficulties', since I was only there for one day, I missed my chance to see the presentation on a better screen, and more directly than via small screen and internet.

I sort of point this out, since everyone other than the few who did see bigscreen, direct presentations, are in fact basing their opinions on 'small screens with compressed data'...

Yup I'll agree with that. It's like shopping for a TV. Once it's in your living room it's not going to matter that something else is better or worse.

I learned this when I was a teenager working with another guy on our first feature film. We were shooting on DV and I hated the look. Just hated it. All I wanted to be doing was shooting on 16mm. Eventually my partner got so pissed at my negativity toward DV that during one of our production meetings he just walked out without saying a word and we ended the production right there. It wasn't until a while later I realized it was my fault. I let my obsession with 16mm get in the way of actually doing a good job with DV. For seeing DV as a viable medium and more importantly for seeing the camera as just a tool. I should have been putting the emphasis on what we were creating, not what we were creating it with. I shot and completed my next feature film on DV, screened it in a theater to an audience and no one cared it was DV, neither did I. By that point I had learned my lesson.

Many differences to what Zacuto might envisage for a filmmaker shootout.

- Competitions don't often have an Emmy winning documentary about them
- With a festival or competition you don't get to see the film being made and you don't get to see the filmmakers making choices about actors, crew, scripting, etc.
- With a festival nobody is really on the same budget or starting from the same point, so many variables other than just talent

Give talent a level playing field, make a great documentary about it from start to finish and then see who comes out tops.

We would learn SO much from watching a docu like this.

What this should finally tell us once and for all, and for those who pretend not to know, is that a truck full of lights is far more important than the camera. If you don't even have a basic box of lights, no camera is going to make you a better shooter. Learn how to light, don't crutch on the fact that camera x can see in the dark.

with the Alexa you may be able to get decent results with a window and a shiny board, anything short of that is going to need some light shaping. There is no point in aiming for a high end 'Hollywood' level camera if you don't have a semi with a megawatt generator and a trailer full of HMI's. If like me you make due with a box of RedHeads, some diffusion and what not, there is not going to be a significant difference either. I can fill a window backlit scene (indirect sun) with a single 23w daylight balanced CFL on an HV20. Outside will be hot, but acceptable, we are long past the days when the audience expects the outside to be perfectly exposed to inside, when I see that it looks fake. Nearly any current camera is 'good enough' if you know what you are doing.

The Alexa needs lights just as the GH2 does. We use light to create a mood not to illuminate as Fredreic Goodich says in the video. The only difference is that you need more light to accomplish the same effect with the GH2 as with the Alexa. Still we are talking about tiny lights compared to what I was using in the 1980's and 90's.

 

[zacuto]

The day I was at NAB, the Zacuto presentation booth was having 'technical difficulties', since I was only there for one day, I missed my chance to see the presentation on a better screen, and more directly than via small screen and internet.

I sort of point this out, since everyone other than the few who did see bigscreen, direct presentations, are in fact basing their opinions on 'small screens with compressed data'...

Yup I'll agree with that. It's like shopping for a TV. Once it's in your living room it's not going to matter that something else is better or worse.

I learned this when I was a teenager working with another guy on our first feature film. We were shooting on DV and I hated the look. Just hated it. All I wanted to be doing was shooting on 16mm. Eventually my partner got so pissed at my negativity toward DV that during one of our production meetings he just walked out without saying a word and we ended the production right there. It wasn't until a while later I realized it was my fault. I let my obsession with 16mm get in the way of actually doing a good job with DV. For seeing DV as a viable medium and more importantly for seeing the camera as just a tool. I should have been putting the emphasis on what we were creating, not what we were creating it with. I shot and completed my next feature film on DV, screened it in a theater to an audience and no one cared it was DV, neither did I. By that point I had learned my lesson.

Many differences to what Zacuto might envisage for a filmmaker shootout.

- Competitions don't often have an Emmy winning documentary about them
- With a festival or competition you don't get to see the film being made and you don't get to see the filmmakers making choices about actors, crew, scripting, etc.
- With a festival nobody is really on the same budget or starting from the same point, so many variables other than just talent

Give talent a level playing field, make a great documentary about it from start to finish and then see who comes out tops.

We would learn SO much from watching a docu like this.

I think you made a lot of really good points in your post, and I appreciate all the work that went into the shootout.

However....



It would have been nice if the story you were telling was shot in a more serious way. Ithink the camera work (or style) that was used to shoot interviews did a dis-service to all of the talented people who were interviewed. It sort of flew in the face of some of the great things that were being said. And "do as I say, not as I do" isn't the best way to convey the "go out and shoot, work on your lighting, watch and see life (as Janusz says) so you can reproduce it on film" motif.

I disagree with the order of the list you gave: "story, acting, directing, sound, lighting and camera: IN THAT ORDER......" If any one of those is bad, it'll hurt the whole.

A few of my favorite "what were they thinking" shots (you can view a large version here) :

That's my vision. I love the framing of my shots. Especially the grabs you put up. It's how I like to frame things. What is right? On the left. On the right, with leading space. Boring to me.

Of course we'd like to have every thing be great with regards to the list i posed up above. As far as the list, I hate to give you a spoiler from other episodes but almost every DP said that Sound is far more important then picture. One can tolerate bad picture, but nobody can sit through bad sound.

 

[zacuto]

The day I was at NAB, the Zacuto presentation booth was having 'technical difficulties', since I was only there for one day, I missed my chance to see the presentation on a better screen, and more directly than via small screen and internet.

I sort of point this out, since everyone other than the few who did see bigscreen, direct presentations, are in fact basing their opinions on 'small screens with compressed data'...

Yup I'll agree with that. It's like shopping for a TV. Once it's in your living room it's not going to matter that something else is better or worse.

I learned this when I was a teenager working with another guy on our first feature film. We were shooting on DV and I hated the look. Just hated it. All I wanted to be doing was shooting on 16mm. Eventually my partner got so pissed at my negativity toward DV that during one of our production meetings he just walked out without saying a word and we ended the production right there. It wasn't until a while later I realized it was my fault. I let my obsession with 16mm get in the way of actually doing a good job with DV. For seeing DV as a viable medium and more importantly for seeing the camera as just a tool. I should have been putting the emphasis on what we were creating, not what we were creating it with. I shot and completed my next feature film on DV, screened it in a theater to an audience and no one cared it was DV, neither did I. By that point I had learned my lesson.

Many differences to what Zacuto might envisage for a filmmaker shootout.

- Competitions don't often have an Emmy winning documentary about them
- With a festival or competition you don't get to see the film being made and you don't get to see the filmmakers making choices about actors, crew, scripting, etc.
- With a festival nobody is really on the same budget or starting from the same point, so many variables other than just talent

Give talent a level playing field, make a great documentary about it from start to finish and then see who comes out tops.

We would learn SO much from watching a docu like this.

I really wish that before all of the DP's had time to adjust lighting for their cameras, that they all shot a few seconds under the exact same conditions so that we can see what camera does what under the SAME given lighting conditions. We can draw our own conclusions as to which ones need more boost in the shadows, etc...

I'm going to post this here as well since it's relevant to the discussion.

My guess is that the GH2 is camera G. Slightly different focal length ( tighter ), depth of field seems slightly larger. And if I'm correct, i'll also go out and guess that they shot with Cinema profile due to the highlight handling on the house backdrop. A and F are definitely my favourite. B and D being my last favourite and the rest have their own appeal.

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/2916/allimages.jpg

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2379/cameraa.jpg

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6141/camerabvd.jpg

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/435/camerac.jpg

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1959/camerad.jpg

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7426/cameraem.jpg

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1120/cameraff.jpg

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6426/camerag.jpg

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6938/camerahq.jpg

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6292/camerait.jpg

People need to learn to read the description on the page. It describes that in ep. 1. you will see the subjective, ep.2 we discuss the and reveal, ep. 3 we run all the cameras through and show you the empirical test with nothing changed between the cameras. It's wouldn't be a test without that. The only difference between this test and other Zacuto tests is you get the objective point of view as well. Be patient and read the descriptions listed right next to the episode:

This 90 minute documentary will be presented in three episodes that will air on the 15th of June, July, and August. It’s critical you watch all three episodes to fully understand the total message. Each segment will feature three of the nine filmmakers describing their approach to the creative shot. Information, techniques, and personal insight will be revealed in episode three that tie into episode one. The three segments are interwoven and to only watch one episode is cheating yourself of valuable information and the full experience.Episode One. Nine cameras. Nine cinematographers. One complex party scene with a 14 stop range. Each DP was asked to shoot the scene based on their knowledge and expertise of a particular camera. There was no reference camera used. The impressive line-up of DPs and the camera arsenal included:
1. Sony F65 — Sony Representatives
2. ARRI Alexa — Rodney Charters, ASC
3. RED Epic — Ryan Walters
4. Sony FS100 — Den Lennie & Mick Jones
5. Sony F3 w/slog — Nancy Schreiber, ASC
6. Canon C300 — Polly Morgan
7. Canon 7D with Technicolor settings — Michael Negrin, ASC
8. Panasonic GH2 (Quantum v9b Hack) — Jonny Zeller & Colt Seman
9. Apple iPhone 4s — Michael Koerbel
Each DP brings their talent to the lens as they mold and shape light to their preferences, setting up their specific camera with the optimal color profiles, and how they finish the footage in post-production during color timing. The camera isn’t dictating how these shots turn out; it’s the DPs knowledge and mastery of these fundamentals and the camera they’re working with. You’ll be presented with all the test footage not knowing which camera is which and be asked to select which ones you prefer.
Later this summer in Episode 2 test administrator Bruce Logan, ASC, will reveal the labeled footage and you’ll hear the reaction from audiences around the world. Perceptions change quickly- some for better, some for worse- when they learn their picks may not be what they expected. Some celebrity guest’s picks may shock you!
In the final third episode the cameras will be put through an empirical test with locked down lighting. We’ll see how the cameras measure up on paper and get into the science and technical aspects of how these cameras shadows, highlights and resolution.
Not only will you hear from the featured DPs, you’ll get exclusive access to legends in the industry as Zacuto’s Steve Weiss interviews them as they share their thoughts on what it takes to make it as a successful cinematographer. The education from these interviews alone is enough reason to tune in. You won’t want to miss the surprises we have in store for Episodes 2 and 3.
So, is Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout 2012 a test? What exactly are you in for?
“It shows you, (that) in the right hands, you can make a beautiful image,” says Weiss. He pointed out you can tell a good story on a bad camera and have a hit, but all hope is lost when you try to use a top of the line camera to tell a bad story. It’s always about story, isn’t it?
Weiss goes on to say it’s about mastering the camera you have, learning how to light properly for your camera’s strengths and limitations, getting your color settings dialed in, knowing how to adjust the grade in post. This, along with understanding how, when, and why you should move the camera and choose a particular angle are more important than the camera will ever be.
It’s been eleven months in the making with over 600 participants including cast and crew as well as thirty sponsors. We spanned the globe from Chicago to LA, San Francisco, Australia, and London to bring you interviews from top players in the industry.
Steve Weiss, web series director, along with his DP/operator of 27 years, Jens Bogehegn, interview Bruce LoganASC, Haskell Wexler ASC, Janusz Kaminski, Stephen Goldblatt ASC/BSC, Rodney Charters, ASC/CSC, Peter James ASC/ACS, Victor Kemper ASC, Steven Fierberg ASC, Richard Crudo ASC, Francis Kenny ASC, Daryn Okada ASC, Bob Primes ASC, Stephen Lighthill ASC, Nancy Schreiber ASC, Michael Negrin ASC, Steven Poster ASC, Frederic Goodich ASC, Polly Morgan, Philip Bloom, Vincent Laforet, Elliot Rosenblatt, Mick Jones, Colt Seman, Jonny Zeller, Michael Koerbel, Ryan Walters, Den Lennie, Alan Thatcher, Lan Bui, Gary Adcock, Mark Androw, Chuck Lee, Tim Smith, Natacha Merritt, Jimmy Cadenas, Jonah Mueller, and Gayle McCormick among others on a variety of subjects that will both move and enlighten you.
Pull up a seat, have an open mind, listen, and learn. It’s not the gear that determines greatness anymore. It’s you!

 

[Gary Huff]

Please don't quote posts in their entirety that have loads of media attached to them.

 

[zacuto]

The day I was at NAB, the Zacuto presentation booth was having 'technical difficulties', since I was only there for one day, I missed my chance to see the presentation on a better screen, and more directly than via small screen and internet.

I sort of point this out, since everyone other than the few who did see bigscreen, direct presentations, are in fact basing their opinions on 'small screens with compressed data'...

Yup I'll agree with that. It's like shopping for a TV. Once it's in your living room it's not going to matter that something else is better or worse.

I learned this when I was a teenager working with another guy on our first feature film. We were shooting on DV and I hated the look. Just hated it. All I wanted to be doing was shooting on 16mm. Eventually my partner got so pissed at my negativity toward DV that during one of our production meetings he just walked out without saying a word and we ended the production right there. It wasn't until a while later I realized it was my fault. I let my obsession with 16mm get in the way of actually doing a good job with DV. For seeing DV as a viable medium and more importantly for seeing the camera as just a tool. I should have been putting the emphasis on what we were creating, not what we were creating it with. I shot and completed my next feature film on DV, screened it in a theater to an audience and no one cared it was DV, neither did I. By that point I had learned my lesson.

Many differences to what Zacuto might envisage for a filmmaker shootout.

- Competitions don't often have an Emmy winning documentary about them
- With a festival or competition you don't get to see the film being made and you don't get to see the filmmakers making choices about actors, crew, scripting, etc.
- With a festival nobody is really on the same budget or starting from the same point, so many variables other than just talent

Give talent a level playing field, make a great documentary about it from start to finish and then see who comes out tops.

We would learn SO much from watching a docu like this.

Please don't quote posts in their entirety that have loads of media attached to them.

I'm new to this, how do you not quote them in their entirety, delete parts?

 

[Gary Huff]

I'm new to this, how do you not quote them in their entirety, delete parts?

You can edit the text between the QUOTE tags and just reference specific parts you are referring to.

Because of the quoted posts with the large pictures in them, it makes my browser slow to a crawl when this page loads.

 

[JeffHarriger]

I did a little whining somewhere in this thread, but holy crap a lot of people really WANT ANOTHER 'SCIENTIFIC' TEST! WHY? They're all over this forum. They're BORING, my not at all scientific trying to have fun ones included. All the points Zacuto (is it Steve? Sorry...) is making are going to fall on deaf ears, because someone's going to bring up "what about 4K" blah blah blah. What about it? GH2 is NOT a Red Epic, an Alexa, etc. If you're shooting to have your GH2 look like 'Prometheus' on a 4K Imax or something you will ALWAYS be disappointed. If this is what you need to keep up this endless pixel peep blame the camera or the operator or the test guidelines BS, when the real problem you're having as independent filmmaker is with a lack of actors (not just 'who's around', but good ones who are right for roles), no time or effort put into production design and costume, a weak cliched boring script trying to be what Hollywood already does just fine, thank you (why DO you think Lena Dunham got her HBO deal? Because "Tiny Furniture" showed off the 7D which is being bashed in this thread? Of course not (I know, she's the upper class gal with connections, right? No talent involved, none of this personal voice crap...), no real distribution avenue outside of the stupid internet, then on all of this I understand and on some of these points I really do feel your pain, but come off it and get real. The GH2 and these other cameras are awesome. A GH2 body costs like 800 bucks. It has shortcomings. Even hacked it hasn't cured a single terminal illness.
Better questions to ask: Are you an artist? Maybe not really, maybe you're looking for commercial paying gigs? Those are great and they keep the heat on. These forums are full of folks who can and will help you in those pursuits. What role are you trying to fulfill, because if it is "I want to be a filmmaker" and not "I want to be Chris Nolan", you can absolutely do it, just find some people who have the same drive and dream. They won't just come knocking, but they're out there. They WON'T be impressed by your camera rig. The people who ARE will be assholes, who want to be Chris Nolan and don't want you to be.
I'm reminded of an anecdote about Roberto Rossellini being on a set and seeing a large group huddled around a camera like it was a magical object, and he said something like "For me a camera is a pen, why should I be excited about a pen?" And also, again because this site is DVXUSER, when Pedro Costa came out with "In Vanda's Room" and "Colossal Youth", shot on the DVX100, those movies were compared to Rembrandt and Vermeer, and I bet that felt good even though it wasn't 4k. I'm sounding too preachy and pretentious by half and off topic to boot, but seriously you (and I include me) HAVE to ask what you really want to do, ask the tough questions about yourself and your art, and those answers will be the only ones you need, unless you come up empty, then you're right back here where I am, talking about how I was bored by this test because it didn't get to what I thought was the meat of the potato quick enough. And right there is Zacuto's finer point, and I thank them for rubbing it my face and others, too. Maybe it's the medicine we need.

 

[zacuto]

I did a little whining somewhere in this thread, but holy crap a lot of people really WANT ANOTHER 'SCIENTIFIC' TEST! WHY? They're all over this forum. They're BORING, my not at all scientific trying to have fun ones included. All the points Zacuto (is it Steve? Sorry...) is making are going to fall on deaf ears, because someone's going to bring up "what about 4K" blah blah blah. What about it? GH2 is NOT a Red Epic, an Alexa, etc. If you're shooting to have your GH2 look like 'Prometheus' on a 4K Imax or something you will ALWAYS be disappointed. If this is what you need to keep up this endless pixel peep blame the camera or the operator or the test guidelines BS, when the real problem you're having as independent filmmaker is with a lack of actors (not just 'who's around', but good ones who are right for roles), no time or effort put into production design and costume, a weak cliched boring script trying to be what Hollywood already does just fine, thank you (why DO you think Lena Dunham got her HBO deal? Because "Tiny Furniture" showed off the 7D which is being bashed in this thread? Of course not (I know, she's the upper class gal with connections, right? No talent involved, none of this personal voice crap...), no real distribution avenue outside of the stupid internet, then on all of this I understand and on some of these points I really do feel your pain, but come off it and get real. The GH2 and these other cameras are awesome. A GH2 body costs like 800 bucks. It has shortcomings. Even hacked it hasn't cured a single terminal illness.
Better questions to ask: Are you an artist? Maybe not really, maybe you're looking for commercial paying gigs? Those are great and they keep the heat on. These forums are full of folks who can and will help you in those pursuits. What role are you trying to fulfill, because if it is "I want to be a filmmaker" and not "I want to be Chris Nolan", you can absolutely do it, just find some people who have the same drive and dream. They won't just come knocking, but they're out there. They WON'T be impressed by your camera rig. The people who ARE will be assholes, who want to be Chris Nolan and don't want you to be.
I'm reminded of an anecdote about Roberto Rossellini being on a set and seeing a large group huddled around a camera like it was a magical object, and he said something like "For me a camera is a pen, why should I be excited about a pen?" And also, again because this site is DVXUSER, when Pedro Costa came out with "In Vanda's Room" and "Colossal Youth", shot on the DVX100, those movies were compared to Rembrandt and Vermeer, and I bet that felt good even though it wasn't 4k. I'm sounding too preachy and pretentious by half and off topic to boot, but seriously you (and I include me) HAVE to ask what you really want to do, ask the tough questions about yourself and your art, and those answers will be the only ones you need, unless you come up empty, then you're right back here where I am, talking about how I was bored by this test because it didn't get to what I thought was the meat of the potato quick enough. And right there is Zacuto's finer point, and I thank them for rubbing it my face and others, too. Maybe it's the medicine we need.

Thank you. You understand the my message. Rewatch the program, every comment is essential to what I'm trying to say, what it takes to be a cinematographer, understanding light, collaborating, study the work or other cinematographers, and hear the final bit of advice at the end of my film that these people said when I asked them to speak to young people. Come one, Victor Kemper of Dog Day Afternoon & The Final Countdown, who's a bit old and it's hard for him to get a job with all of the ageism in Hollywood told me he thought it would be fun to do a feature with a not so great camera because it would cause him to be more creative. If you really believe which camera you use makes a damn as he put it you are dreaming. That's assuming your goal is to sell or make money with what you make. I shot my interviews with a Varicam (10 year old technology), in glorious 720p and I think it's the best looking footage in the whole piece. But to me the only reason it looks great is because of Jens lighting scheme.

 

[Gary Huff]

Come one, Victor Kemper of Dog Day Afternoon & The Final Countdown, who's a bit old and it's hard for him to get a job with all of the ageism in Hollywood

Not to deny that there is ageism in Hollywood, but a strange comment nonetheless considering it's hard to get a job when you're 85 almost anywhere.