GH2 Hacked GH2 Impressed in the new Zacuto shootout

Gary Huff said:
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.
Click to expand...

And of course, he can also go back now and edit his post to cut down on the quotes....
 
I don't give a crap if he's 85. If Victor wants to work for way less pay that he's used too I'll hire him.
 
I enjoyed the 1st part. As I stated in another thread, I didn't really care about the tests. I have seen so many, have done some myself, and to be honest. I would rather be out shooting than watching another redundant test. I already know the majority of these can create beautiful cinematic images. What I loved was the ability to be able to watch great Dp's work, talk about their work and imbrace the new tech. This piece was very entertaining, and the only issue that erks me, is that I have to wait another two monthes to see the rest of it. And I really hope the next two episodes are as entertaining as the first.

I can't imagine the work that goes into this type of film. The cordination must be insane. So hats off to the Dp's, producers, gaffers, grips, boom, director, ect..and the Zacuto staff. Congratulations for creating another great shoot out film. There's no reason you guys shouldn't be nominated or win another emmy.
 
...I was at Vistek's annual video production show ( ProFusion 2012 ) this afternoon, and to my surprise the "Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout 2012" was playing on a big Sony HD tv at the Zacuto booth.

But what was even more interesting, was that this appeared to be an earlier edit of Zacuto's shootout that contained lots of content that's not in the Part 1 web version, and this includes footage that identifies all 9 cameras.

I am NOT going to let the "cat out of the bag" ( that wouldn't be fair to Zacuto ), but I can tell you that 6 of my 9 camera choices were WRONG, and that the camera that I hated the most in this shootout is the camera I own. ( Doh! )

Lastly, there is a ray of sunshine for some of the naysayers in this thread... Zacuto DID test all cameras using the SAME lighting set-up, which changes my opinion on some of the cameras. ( the camera that I hated the most, produced a MUCH nicer image when NO changes were made to the original set lighting )

One other thing that I noticed was that the most expensive cameras looked very good when no changes were made to the original lighting, where the cheaper cameras definitely needed some lighting changes to make them look good.
 
TheDingo said:
...I was at Vistek's annual video production show ( ProFusion 2012 ) this afternoon, and to my surprise the "Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout 2012" was playing on a big Sony HD tv at the Zacuto booth.

But what was even more interesting, was that this appeared to be an earlier edit of Zacuto's shootout that contained lots of content that's not in the Part 1 web version, and this includes footage that identifies all 9 cameras.

I am NOT going to let the "cat out of the bag" ( that wouldn't be fair to Zacuto ), but I can tell you that 6 of my 9 camera choices were WRONG, and that the camera that I hated the most in this shootout is the camera I own. ( Doh! )

Lastly, there is a ray of sunshine for some of the naysayers in this thread... Zacuto DID test all cameras using the SAME lighting set-up, which changes my opinion on some of the cameras. ( the camera that I hated the most, produced a MUCH nicer image when NO changes were made to the original set lighting )

One other thing that I noticed was that the most expensive cameras looked very good when no changes were made to the original lighting, where the cheaper cameras definitely needed some lighting changes to make them look good.
Click to expand...

Ok have to ask......you say you liked "your" camera the least?.........you list gh2 as your camera, so im taking it you liked gh2 the least?....lol.
 
zacuto said:
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.
Click to expand...

You don't like time restricted competitions fair enough but to call them "a complete waste of time and stupid" seems a little overboard? I did a 48HR comp film last year and the time restriction meant I ended up shooting something spur of the moment that I actually ended up really liking. What's wrong with getting out there and shooting? Not everything has to be perfect. There's room for all kinds of movie making experiences.
 
Gary Huff said:
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.
Click to expand...

But when you have created so much money with your work for so many film studios in Hollywood, why should there be agism. I wouldn't, I prefer to hire people in their 80's because they have made all the mistakes when it comes to lighting, framing, etc. Why some people would want to work with young pups is beyond me. This was never the case in Hollywood up until the 2000's, you normally worked until you died, like Lazlo Kovacs or Conrad Hall.
 
I know this is off-topic but Conrad Hall was the man...and I'm so glad he kept working...otherwise Road To Perdition wouldn't exist.
 
Props to Zacuto for putting it together. So easy to criticize, so hard to create.

I feel like a million bucks when I review footage shot with my hacked GH2 on a 1080p monitor. I think I understand this shootout correctly...the fact it is hard to tell the different cameras apart is what it is all about, right?

Unless Jim Jannard is correct and 4K overtakes us all in a tsunami of technology, 1080p will be what most of us deliver in for the next couple of years at least. This means that we have acquisition tools that essentially rival the best ones out there.

So as Kholi says, "Shoot it up."
 
zacuto said:
I'm a little hurt and confused by that myself considering I paid (not Canon as stated) to bring Francis up to Skywalker to watch it. Certainly, one could render their opinion nicer I'd think, but that's just me. I thought we were pals.

What bothers me more is that people on this forum and others are not really getting the idea of "Revenge" of the great camera shootout. Bruce states in the beginning-- that most all of these cameras could be used to make a movie. Now for Francis or Rodney of course they will use the RED or Alexa because it is easier to use and has more creature comforts. I get that. The point of all of the interviews is so that you hear what the real qualities of a great cinematographer are (the counterpoint) to not having an Alexa. Knowing that lighting, framing, movement, drive, determination, story and yes talent far out way the differences in a camera choice. We can sit and debate the picture qualities all day long but is that really going to make your film more sellable or marketable? So many people thought that the interviews in my film looked better then all of the cameras in the test. They were shot with a Varicam (10 year old technology) in glorious 720p. Jens and I love the look of the Varicam, Jens knows how to light for camera, we didn't want shallow DOF for fear of losing a moment and wanted a real servo zoom lens for beautiful slow creeping zooms. It was an incredibly hard and expensive getting these interviews, believe me, and these legends like Haskell, Goldblatt, Kaminski, Kemper and others are bleeding their heart out to you and all we are doing here is talking cameras. We should be talking about what it really takes to be great, the various projects we are working on and how can we collectively get them better.

The Revenge part is that the test proves what our tag line says "It's not the gear that determines greatness anymore" It's you! Do you think that Janusz could do amazing cinematography and storytelling using a GH2--of course he could because he knows how to light, frame, move, etc and has talent. Of course he wouldn't use one but that's not the point, in the right hands with the right talent some young kid could make something brilliant with an iPhone or a GH2 and if it was great and marketable it could be bought by Hollywood. When I was young we only had super 8 to play with and it was expensive to buy and process the film and we only got to shoot a 2-1 if we were lucky. s*%t, if I would have had an iPhone, I can't even imagine how much farther I would be today 37 years later. Now you can create a way better image on an iPhone then on super 8 and it's free to use. I've recently seen brilliant work done on an iPhone. I tip my hat to those folks like Michael Koerbel. I'm not telling people to use an iPhone. What I telling you is to use what you have and master it. You don't need to buy the fanciest new camera because it won't make you on iota a better DP. That includes all of the Zacuto stuff. If you can afford more power to you, if you can't, make your own, figure out a creative work around. Tools are there to help you, but if you don't have "it" game over. So work on "it".

When we were at Skytwalker they were testing the projector and when I walked in and said damn that looks amazing what is that and the projectionist told me it was the iPhone. When you go into the theater and you have nothing to compare the image to, you have immediate buy in. But hear me when I tell you this: 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. That's where I would put my money. Camera is way down on my list and wait to what you hear from our legends in future episodes. Let's stop splitting hairs. Projected in 2K Stephen Goldblatt said many of them looked similar and that's pissing off a lot of the higher end camera companies.

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. I met Janusz 30 years ago when he was in film school. Jens and Janusz went to Columbia college together. All I can tell you is that you could feel Janusz was going to be someone. Why? Everyone who was doing a school film project whether it was s*%t or not, Janusz wanted to be their DP. He would say, I might be able to rent a piece of gear or do one shot that I want to do and I could put that on my reel. He had the drive that everyone is talking about in this film and he had the passion. You will see in part three that yes on paper the more expensive cameras did amazingly well in the empirical tests but what you are seeing here in part one is what a cinematographer with game can create using his creativity and lighting skill to make his camera look a best he can. To me that's interesting. Remember, each DP was not trying to match his scene to a master shot, so each was putting a bit of their own twist on the shot. Some wanted the window to blow out a bit or let the blacks be slightly crushed. The empirical test in part three is more of a level playing field-- the counterpoint between the two of these--the difference is the empirical is what you have and the creative shot is what you can do with it. Please. Get creative, have an open mind, go out and shoot and listen to Victor Kemper in the final statement of the film. "If you think Hollywood gives a damn what camera you used on a job, they don't even know and you couldn't find three people who could tell you. If you have the drive and the talent, you can make a pretty damn good film".

your friend, Steve
Click to expand...


"Story, acting, directing, sound, lighting and camera: IN THAT ORDER."

+99999999999

Being a writer / actor / director / sound guy / dp / editor (he forgot editing) I say the above is a concrete mantra.

I don't get lighting well (I see it in my head but don't know what light I need to make it look that way) so I get a good gaffer.
 
zacuto said:
This was never the case in Hollywood up until the 2000's, you normally worked until you died, like Lazlo Kovacs or Conrad Hall.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sad they'd never give a 75-year old director a 120 million dollar budget to make his high-concept scifi film.
 
Ryan Farnes said:
Props to Zacuto for putting it together. So easy to criticize, so hard to create.

I feel like a million bucks when I review footage shot with my hacked GH2 on a 1080p monitor. I think I understand this shootout correctly...the fact it is hard to tell the different cameras apart is what it is all about, right?

Unless Jim Jannard is correct and 4K overtakes us all in a tsunami of technology, 1080p will be what most of us deliver in for the next couple of years at least. This means that we have acquisition tools that essentially rival the best ones out there.

So as Kholi says, "Shoot it up."
Click to expand...

You got it exactly right, 4K is not here in 2012 and even if it were, who cares, even if we have 10K, content will still always be king even if your piece was a shot on 1/4K. The amount of K it is not what makes something go viral is it?
 
Barry_Green said:
Content -- whether a high-concept story or a pressing social issue or an outrageously funny dramatic squirrel -- is the only thing that matters.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fluoro said:
You don't like time restricted competitions fair enough but to call them "a complete waste of time and stupid" seems a little overboard? I did a 48HR comp film last year and the time restriction meant I ended up shooting something spur of the moment that I actually ended up really liking. What's wrong with getting out there and shooting? Not everything has to be perfect. There's room for all kinds of movie making experiences.
Click to expand...

I love the idea that you are out there shooting and I want you to do more of it. But filmmaking is not a game, it's an art form. I would rather you work on perfecting your art form instead of doing it on a scavenger hunt style shoot. Plan a shoot, find an amazing script from a scriptwriter, collaborate with an editor, when they are done with the rough cut come in and direct the rest of the edit, find amazing library music ($100 a cut) or some indie music guy to make original music it for you. That's filmmaking, the collaborative way, as they describe it in the REVENGE and I think you could talk everyone into doing it for free.
 
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...
No it doesn't! How can you say that? Content is the reason why people watch something -- to get the content.

People don't read books to look at the lovely typeface. And they don't watch video to glamorize over the pixels (well, I mean, those outside this forum don't). They read books to gain the knowledge of the content within - whether a story for entertainment, or technical information or whatever. Whatever the PURPOSE of the written material is, that is what people read it for -- and whether it succeeds or fails is due to the quality of its content. Not its typeface.

With moving images it is the same -- people watch a video for the purpose of engaging with its content. Whether that purpose is to make you laugh or cry or want to hunt down a Ugandan war criminal.

Content means everything, and it is specifically relevant to the intended purpose.

Do you choose what food product in a can to buy, based on the exterior packaging? Maybe once, but not twice! It is the content that keeps you coming back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top